3 ms·

> The implementation pretty much causes human rights violations. How is that?

by lurk2 1y ago

spwa4 1y ago
For example: selective enforcement, for example states vs terrorists. Even Russia became a victim of that, which I'll point out in hopes of avoiding discussion on Israel. Russia, of course commits human rights abuses in Ukraine. But Daesh committed serious human rights abuses against Russia [1] [2], as did a number of other islamist, nationalist and even a socialist group. Not one iota of attention of the court ever went to that. But this is a general problem. The court undertakes action against states, especially if they are currently unpopular in the UN (who appoints the judges), but never against the many groups that commit large scale human rights abuses against those states. A third problem is that ICC convictions are entirely optional if you're in power. Any government is allowed to ask the ICC to not sue anyone for things either they did, or that happened on their soil. Sorry, any government EXCEPT the US and Israel are allowed to ask that. The ICC changed it's own statutes TWICE last year to sue Israel, and has done so before against the US. A relevant question would be "is the ICC allowed to change it's own statutes?" ... and of course the answer is no. Or you could point out less serious, but ubiquitous human rights abuses that the ICC won't touch for various reasons. For example, every last muslim-majority state violates freedom of religion, a human right. Even Morocco and Turkey do [3] [4]. You will not hear the ICC on this issue. Or to focus on a different problem, there's constant human rights abuses essentially everywhere on the planet in the prison system, including juvenile justice systems and just general youth services. This happens everywhere, with famous incidents in Romania, the US, France, Australia, ... you will not hear the ICC on this. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocus_City_Hall_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocus_City_Hall_attack [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_siege https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_siege [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Morocco https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Morocco [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Turkey#Abuses_of_religious_freedom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Turkey#...
- vidarh 1y ago
  The ICC takes actions against people. It very specifically does not have jurisdiction over conflicts between states. The ICJ pursues cases against states. > Not one iota of attention of the court ever went to that. The ICC only has jurisdiction over the territories and nationals of the State Parties to the Rome Statute. In the case of Israel, the actions are taken on the basis of alleged crimes in Palestinian territory, the same basis they have used for pursuing Palestinian crimes. They have not "changed their own statutes". In the case of Daesh/ISIS, the court has issued statement that affirm that there are serious crimes involved, but pointing out that for those crimes taking place in Syria and Iraq, the ICC had no territorial jurisdiction because neither state were parties to the Rome Statute. In the case of your examples of Daesh actions in Russia, Russia is also not a State Party to the ICC, and so it was Russias own choice to ensure that Daesh can not be pursued by the ICC. > Sorry, any government EXCEPT the US and Israel are allowed to ask that. The US and Israel are not parties to the ICC. They should have no expectation that a court they have explicitly refused to be part of will allow them control over how the court exercises the mandate given to it by those who are actually parties to the court. > Or you could point out less serious, but ubiquitous human rights abuses that the ICC won't touch for various reasons. For example, every last muslim-majority state violates freedom of religion, a human right. Even Morocco and Turkey do [3] [4]. You will not hear the ICC on this issue. The "various reasons" being that the ICC does 1) *not have jurisdiction over states, 2) the Rome Statute does not allow the ICC to pursue individuals for violating freedom of religion. In other words: While I'd be all for protecting freedom of religion and for the ICC to be able to prosecute people preventing it, it is not a power the ICC has been granted by its signatories. Effectively your complaints against the ICC all boil down to the ICC following its own rules about what its jurisdiction is and which crimes they are allowed to prosecute.
  - spwa4 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - vidarh 1y ago
      > Your entire argument boils down do "this is legal for the ICC, and that that definition of legal differs greatly from your sense of justice doesn't matter" No. No part of my comment was about that at all. > is the case can you explain ICC action against US and Israel, neither of which are parties to the Rome statute The ICC does not take actions against states. As for the actions against Israeli officials, those are taken on the basis of actions relating to Palestine, over which ICChas jurisdiction be cause Palestine is party to the court. I explained this. > Also from the other side: the ICC most certainly COULD sue South Africa for working with Putin and Bashar Al-Assad to help them escape justice. No, it could not. The ICC does not have jurisdiction over states. For the ICC to act would require evidence of specific individuals violating the Rome Statute. > They chose not to. Frankly, MANY signatories to the Rome statute have zero intention to ever hold up their end. Here we agree, for once. This is indeed a problem. > And your claim "they follow their own rules" ... you also neglected to discuss why the ICC changed it's own statutes TWICE to sue Israel ... They did not, and the ICC does not sue anybody, and the ICC can not pursue states. Every part of this sentence is wrong and or misunderstands how the ICC works.

> The implementation pretty much causes human rights violations. How is that?

by lurk2 1y ago

> The implementation pretty much causes human rights violations. How is that?

For example: selective enforcement, for example states vs terrorists. Even Russia became a victim of that, which I'll point out in hopes of avoiding discussion on Israel. Russia, of course commits human rights abuses in Ukraine. But Daesh committed serious human rights abuses against Russia [1] [2], as did a number of other islamist, nationalist and even a socialist group. Not one iota of attention of the court ever went to that. But this is a general problem. The court undertakes action against states, especially if they are currently unpopular in the UN (who appoints the judges), but never against the many groups that commit large scale human rights abuses against those states. A third problem is that ICC convictions are entirely optional if you're in power. Any government is allowed to ask the ICC to not sue anyone for things either they did, or that happened on their soil. Sorry, any government EXCEPT the US and Israel are allowed to ask that. The ICC changed it's own statutes TWICE last year to sue Israel, and has done so before against the US. A relevant question would be "is the ICC allowed to change it's own statutes?" ... and of course the answer is no. Or you could point out less serious, but ubiquitous human rights abuses that the ICC won't touch for various reasons. For example, every last muslim-majority state violates freedom of religion, a human right. Even Morocco and Turkey do [3] [4]. You will not hear the ICC on this issue. Or to focus on a different problem, there's constant human rights abuses essentially everywhere on the planet in the prison system, including juvenile justice systems and just general youth services. This happens everywhere, with famous incidents in Romania, the US, France, Australia, ... you will not hear the ICC on this. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocus_City_Hall_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocus_City_Hall_attack [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_siege https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_siege [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Morocco https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Morocco [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Turkey#Abuses_of_religious_freedom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Turkey#...

vidarh 1y ago
The ICC takes actions against people. It very specifically does not have jurisdiction over conflicts between states. The ICJ pursues cases against states. > Not one iota of attention of the court ever went to that. The ICC only has jurisdiction over the territories and nationals of the State Parties to the Rome Statute. In the case of Israel, the actions are taken on the basis of alleged crimes in Palestinian territory, the same basis they have used for pursuing Palestinian crimes. They have not "changed their own statutes". In the case of Daesh/ISIS, the court has issued statement that affirm that there are serious crimes involved, but pointing out that for those crimes taking place in Syria and Iraq, the ICC had no territorial jurisdiction because neither state were parties to the Rome Statute. In the case of your examples of Daesh actions in Russia, Russia is also not a State Party to the ICC, and so it was Russias own choice to ensure that Daesh can not be pursued by the ICC. > Sorry, any government EXCEPT the US and Israel are allowed to ask that. The US and Israel are not parties to the ICC. They should have no expectation that a court they have explicitly refused to be part of will allow them control over how the court exercises the mandate given to it by those who are actually parties to the court. > Or you could point out less serious, but ubiquitous human rights abuses that the ICC won't touch for various reasons. For example, every last muslim-majority state violates freedom of religion, a human right. Even Morocco and Turkey do [3] [4]. You will not hear the ICC on this issue. The "various reasons" being that the ICC does 1) *not have jurisdiction over states, 2) the Rome Statute does not allow the ICC to pursue individuals for violating freedom of religion. In other words: While I'd be all for protecting freedom of religion and for the ICC to be able to prosecute people preventing it, it is not a power the ICC has been granted by its signatories. Effectively your complaints against the ICC all boil down to the ICC following its own rules about what its jurisdiction is and which crimes they are allowed to prosecute.
- spwa4 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - vidarh 1y ago
    > Your entire argument boils down do "this is legal for the ICC, and that that definition of legal differs greatly from your sense of justice doesn't matter" No. No part of my comment was about that at all. > is the case can you explain ICC action against US and Israel, neither of which are parties to the Rome statute The ICC does not take actions against states. As for the actions against Israeli officials, those are taken on the basis of actions relating to Palestine, over which ICChas jurisdiction be cause Palestine is party to the court. I explained this. > Also from the other side: the ICC most certainly COULD sue South Africa for working with Putin and Bashar Al-Assad to help them escape justice. No, it could not. The ICC does not have jurisdiction over states. For the ICC to act would require evidence of specific individuals violating the Rome Statute. > They chose not to. Frankly, MANY signatories to the Rome statute have zero intention to ever hold up their end. Here we agree, for once. This is indeed a problem. > And your claim "they follow their own rules" ... you also neglected to discuss why the ICC changed it's own statutes TWICE to sue Israel ... They did not, and the ICC does not sue anybody, and the ICC can not pursue states. Every part of this sentence is wrong and or misunderstands how the ICC works.