4 ms·

The 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 m

The 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 ago
That position is pure hubris.
- mystified5016 1y ago
  No, the president of the US should just be considered by all to be the god-emperor of the planet.
- aegypti 1y ago
  ICC 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 ago
    Meanwhile 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 ago
      Whataboutism
  - polski-g 1y ago
    Israel never agreed to abide by the ICC and they're still trying to claim authority over Israeli actions? That's crazy.
    - dlubarov 1y ago
      Yeah, 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 ago
        The 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 ago
        Hamas' 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 ago
  Can you use hubris is a different sentence, so that I can make sure I inderstand what you think it means?
  - saubeidl 1y ago
    It was imperialist hubris for Russia to attack Ukraine.
fwn 1y ago
This 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 ago
  I 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 ago
      Now 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 ago
      That'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 ago

That position is pure hubris.

mystified5016 1y ago
No, the president of the US should just be considered by all to be the god-emperor of the planet.
aegypti 1y ago
ICC 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 ago
  Meanwhile 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 ago
    Whataboutism
- polski-g 1y ago
  Israel never agreed to abide by the ICC and they're still trying to claim authority over Israeli actions? That's crazy.
  - dlubarov 1y ago
    Yeah, 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 ago
      The 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 ago
        Hamas' 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 ago
Can you use hubris is a different sentence, so that I can make sure I inderstand what you think it means?
- saubeidl 1y ago
  It was imperialist hubris for Russia to attack Ukraine.

fwn 1y ago

This 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 ago
I 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 ago
    Now 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 ago
    That'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