6 ms·
Microsoft blocked the email account of Chief Prosecutor of the ICC
- mathgradthrow 1y agoThe US position on the ICC is very reasonable. Absolutely no one should agree to be under the jurisdiction of an independent international court, but at least many of its members signed on to it. The court believes that it has jurisdiction over anyone involved in a conflict with a signatory. This is why the president is preauthorized by congress to use military force against the Netherlands, in the event that an american or allied service member is held there.
- saubeidl 1y agoThat position is pure hubris.
- mystified5016 1y agoNo, the president of the US should just be considered by all to be the god-emperor of the planet.
- aegypti 1y agoICC signatories: - Europe - LATAM - subsaharan Africa ICC nonsignatories: - US - China - India - Russia - Turkey - Israel - Pakistan - Egypt - Saudi Arabia Hubris is imagining a situation in which The Hague Act is ever tested in the first place!
- frankharv 1y agoMeanwhile Ursula "lost" her phones text messages and is laughing at oversight. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2x7gzdr01o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2x7gzdr01o
- jamesblonde 1y agoWhataboutism
- polski-g 1y agoIsrael never agreed to abide by the ICC and they're still trying to claim authority over Israeli actions? That's crazy.
- dlubarov 1y agoYeah, the ICC considers itself to have jurisdiction over crimes committed by non-parties if they're within the territory of a party to the Rome Statute. Here the argument goes that the State of Palestine is a party, and Gaza is somehow its territory, even though it has never controlled or governed Gaza.
- runarberg 1y agoThe State of Palestine has two government at the moment which govern separate territories, just like Libya, Yemen, or China. Neither government of Palestine disputes the ICCs jurisdiction over Gaza. And unlike China there have been numerous attempts to unify the two governments, most of them were stopped by Israel. I think the ICCs argument of jurisdiction is entirely reasonable, and consistent with how the court has ruled previously. EDIT: Since this is Hacker News and we like nerdy details, I’ve linked below the 2021 ruling that established it’s jurisdiction of Palestine. The ruling was 3-1 and explicitly included the West Bank including East Jerusalem, and Gaza. https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/icc-pre-trial-chamber-i-issues-its-decision-prosecutors-request-related-territorial https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/icc-pre-trial-chamber-i-issues-...
- sieabahlpark 1y ago[dead]
- dlubarov 1y agoHamas' feelings about the case aren't really relevant to jurisdiction, partly because the ICC doesn't recognize Gaza as a state, and partly since Hamas hasn't accepted the ICC's jurisdiction. The latter would require Hamas to accept ICC jurisdiction over crimes committed by themselves, not only by Israel, so I don't think that would happen regardless of the statehood matter. Libya, Yemen, and China are a bit different since they used to be unified states. It's great that there's a vision for a unified State of Palestine, but I don't think it makes any sense for the international community to pretend that exists today. In reality the current State of Palestine is represented only by the PLO, which has never controlled Gaza, not is it supported by most Gazans. China is an interesting comparison though. Hypothetically if the PRC wanted to join the ICC, would the ICC understand that as including Taiwan, regardless of what the ROC or the people of Taiwan wanted? If so, that seems like a bad situation made possible by China's leverage, and not something the international community should try to replicate with Palestine.
- mathgradthrow 1y agoCan you use hubris is a different sentence, so that I can make sure I inderstand what you think it means?
- saubeidl 1y agoIt was imperialist hubris for Russia to attack Ukraine.
- fwn 1y agoThis seems like a tangent. The article isn’t about whether the ICC’s jurisdiction is valid—it's about how dependent international institutions (or anyone, really) are on US-based tech providers, and how that exposes them to US executive power, like sanctions or account blocks. I’m not convinced that “digital sovereignty” is the right framing for this problem. What I think is more important here - and probably more interesting to HN - is the fragility introduced by technological monocultures and lack of service portability. Open protocols, interoperability, and reducing concentration risk matter more than trying to build a digitally fenced-off Europe.
- saubeidl 1y agoI think either approach works. China is definitely digitally fenced-off and you don't see it having these issues.
- fwn 1y ago> China is definitely digitally fenced-off and you don't see it having these issues. China is the textbook example of this problem. Political power in China routinely uses infrastructure to suppress or punish those who deviate from approved positions. This is precisely the risk that the article raises. And obviously, if the ICC were to switch to Chinese infrastructure, it would just be trading one leverage for a more active one.
- pk-protect-ai 1y agoNow this happens in US too... ICC must use its own mail servers. Actually any government or international organization must use its own infrastructure. Dependency on any 3rd party is an attack vector.
- saubeidl 1y agoThat's a separate issue. Infrastructure is never suppressed in China because somebody outside of China disapproves of a position. The sovereignty of the Chinese state is maintained.
- 1y ago
- saubeidl 1y agoThis is classic American arrogance, trying to undermine international law for its own selfish agenda. It reinforces the need for the EU to break free from US tech.
- noobermin 1y agoAmerica? How is what Israel wants American arrogance?
- tartuffe78 1y agoAre you not familiar with the relationship between America and Israel?
- sieabahlpark 1y ago[dead]
- includenotfound 1y agoIt would be good to get a honest, objective, non ideological explanation somewhere - but almost any source I find is heavily biased. What's your take on that relationship?
- runarberg 1y agoNothing wrong with getting information from biased sources, as long as you acknowledge the bias and read counter arguments. I think a good place to start is what advocates for this relationship claim. As staunch proponent of Palestinian rights, I think a good starting point is to simply read what AIPAC says about this relationship: https://www.aipac.org/policy-relationship https://www.aipac.org/policy-relationship just know they have a vested interest in exaggerating how good this relationship is and lie about how important it is to strengthen it.
- trod1234 1y agoYou are wrong. It is not 'American' anything. This is plain corporate malfeasance and corruption. If anything its highly anti-American, borderline communist/state regime. American values include many things, one of the more important being free speech. Such a violation deserves reciprocity, stop blaming issues on the wrong things.
- ChrisArchitect 1y ago[dupe] More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44032717 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44032717
- Aerbil313 1y agoI clicked on this expecting it to be caused by some sort of bug. Lo and behold, to nobody's surprise, oppressors have no shame.