6 ms·

It is however appropriate for a group of nations to agree that a person who has committed crimes (according to them) is to be arrested upon entering one of thei

It is however appropriate for a group of nations to agree that a person who has committed crimes (according to them) is to be arrested upon entering one of their nations. It’s not really something you can or cannot concede to, unless you are of the opinion America is the only sovereign state in the world.

SllX 1y ago
Sure, but we’re going to interpret the arrest of a sitting or former POTUS, their direct subordinates or military personnel for the purposes of trying them in the ICC as a political act, not an act to maintain law and order in their home countries and its going to be much easier for us to justify invading and evacuating those people.
- JimBlackwood 1y ago
  That is definitely true. I can imagine the ICC would fall shortly after (since I think enough member states will not execute the arrest order and so it’s existence does not do much)
  - kragen 1y ago
    You're imagining this happening in a world where the US has the political status it had ten years ago, not the political status it will have ten years in the future.
    - SllX 1y ago
      We’re only talking about today, bruh. There’s no sense worrying about a tomorrow that may never come, but I’m willing to bet that 10 years from now we still have the strongest military in and around The Hague and even beyond, very very few would ever be willing to threaten war with us to back up the ICC. Now, 20 years from now? 30 years from now? 50? Who knows.
      - FpUser 1y ago
        >"...very few would ever be willing to threaten war with us to back up the ICC" They would not have to. It will be up to your military to come to allied country and shoot their way through. This might be physically possible but I would imagine that the consequences of it to the standing of the US would be cataclysmic. So unless it is a former president I suspect the US will rather use some severe sanctions and still risk a payback.
        SllX 1y ago
        It won’t even come to that because the real truth is that no ICC member is ever going to arrest and extradite to the ICC a sitting or former POTUS putting us in a position where the Marine Corps. would have to roll into The Hague with a carrier group or two nearby and multiple submarine ICBMs aimed at every capital in Europe. Also you know, the American military personnel already situated nearby within Europe on American and NATO bases. Should the Marine Corps. actually be put into a position to roll in and say “hi” to the people of The Hague for less than peaceful purposes on their leisurely stroll to the ICC’s courthouse, who in their right minds is also going to stand in their way and exchange fire? Not to mention that whoever arrested the President has now effectively declared war on the United States.
        FpUser 1y ago
        Taking president of course means war. I mostly meant someone who is not the president, sitting of former. Then it will be the US thinking of potential consequences.
        SllX 1y ago
        That’s also not going to happen. Even taking a former President is effectively an Act of War, especially with all the classified intel they were privy to during and still privy to after. Honestly you should consider it the same way all the way down to the rank of General, although I sure would hate to be a rank-and-file soldier caught by the ICC somehow. Even in that case they might not get a full on invasion on their behalf, you should still expect the State Department to intervene.
    - JimBlackwood 1y ago
      No, it’s already happening today. There is an arrest warrant out for Netanyahu. Netanyahu visited Hungary, a party of the Rome Statue, and was not arrested. In a similar vein, Poland has said Netanyahu would have been welcome to visit the liberation of Auschwitz, without having to worry about out any arrest. Depending on how Hungary’s actions are resolved, the ICC will lose much of it’s use if member states just ignore the treaty.
      - SllX 1y ago
        Just to add to your point, Germany’s Chancellor Merz has also extended an invitation to Netanyahu: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/election-winner-merz-invites-netanyahu-germany-says-israelis-office-2025-02-24/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/election-winner-merz-in... Hungary though technically still a party, is withdrawing from the Rome Statute: https://www.reuters.com/world/hungarian-lawmakers-approve-bill-quit-international-criminal-court-2025-05-20/ https://www.reuters.com/world/hungarian-lawmakers-approve-bi...
      - kragen 1y ago
        Netanyahu isn't "a sitting or former POTUS, their direct subordinates or military personnel", the arrest of which is the event you said "the ICC would fall shortly after". That's what I disagreed with.
  - FpUser 1y ago
    Then one should add K to ICC as for Kangaroo.
kragen 1y ago
Historically speaking, Westphalian sovereignty meant that there was no such thing as an "international criminal court", nor "war crimes". An ICC party such as France hypothetically arresting, for example, Netanyahu, for things that he did in Israel, would amount to a substantial erosion of Israel's sovereignty in the Westphalian sense. Under the Westphalian system, Israel's prince would have sole jurisdiction in such cases. Of course, that doesn't necessarily tell us anything about whether it's good or bad. Eroding Westphalian sovereignty in such a sense is the whole point of the ICC, the EU, and arguably even the UN (though, of these three, only the ICC would have the particular result described in my previous paragraph). But it's worth pointing out that it's a major difference from centuries of historical precedents, not American exceptionalism.
- bertil 1y ago
  The Westphalian sovereignty that you describe would refuse the authority of the Nuremberg trials.
  - FpUser 1y ago
    The winner takes it all ...
  - kragen 1y ago
    Maybe, but I think Westphalian sovereignty generally permitted conquerors to dispose of the conquered as they saw fit. It's not a moral system, just a Schelling point.
  - senderista 1y ago
    The Nuremberg trials were just victor's justice, as demonstrated by the total impunity for all war crimes committed by the USSR.
    - FpUser 1y ago
      Contrary to the US being severely punished for their crimes ...

SllX 1y ago

Sure, but we’re going to interpret the arrest of a sitting or former POTUS, their direct subordinates or military personnel for the purposes of trying them in the ICC as a political act, not an act to maintain law and order in their home countries and its going to be much easier for us to justify invading and evacuating those people.

JimBlackwood 1y ago
That is definitely true. I can imagine the ICC would fall shortly after (since I think enough member states will not execute the arrest order and so it’s existence does not do much)
- kragen 1y ago
  You're imagining this happening in a world where the US has the political status it had ten years ago, not the political status it will have ten years in the future.
  - SllX 1y ago
    We’re only talking about today, bruh. There’s no sense worrying about a tomorrow that may never come, but I’m willing to bet that 10 years from now we still have the strongest military in and around The Hague and even beyond, very very few would ever be willing to threaten war with us to back up the ICC. Now, 20 years from now? 30 years from now? 50? Who knows.
    - FpUser 1y ago
      >"...very few would ever be willing to threaten war with us to back up the ICC" They would not have to. It will be up to your military to come to allied country and shoot their way through. This might be physically possible but I would imagine that the consequences of it to the standing of the US would be cataclysmic. So unless it is a former president I suspect the US will rather use some severe sanctions and still risk a payback.
      - SllX 1y ago
        It won’t even come to that because the real truth is that no ICC member is ever going to arrest and extradite to the ICC a sitting or former POTUS putting us in a position where the Marine Corps. would have to roll into The Hague with a carrier group or two nearby and multiple submarine ICBMs aimed at every capital in Europe. Also you know, the American military personnel already situated nearby within Europe on American and NATO bases. Should the Marine Corps. actually be put into a position to roll in and say “hi” to the people of The Hague for less than peaceful purposes on their leisurely stroll to the ICC’s courthouse, who in their right minds is also going to stand in their way and exchange fire? Not to mention that whoever arrested the President has now effectively declared war on the United States.
        FpUser 1y ago
        Taking president of course means war. I mostly meant someone who is not the president, sitting of former. Then it will be the US thinking of potential consequences.
        SllX 1y ago
        That’s also not going to happen. Even taking a former President is effectively an Act of War, especially with all the classified intel they were privy to during and still privy to after. Honestly you should consider it the same way all the way down to the rank of General, although I sure would hate to be a rank-and-file soldier caught by the ICC somehow. Even in that case they might not get a full on invasion on their behalf, you should still expect the State Department to intervene.
  - JimBlackwood 1y ago
    No, it’s already happening today. There is an arrest warrant out for Netanyahu. Netanyahu visited Hungary, a party of the Rome Statue, and was not arrested. In a similar vein, Poland has said Netanyahu would have been welcome to visit the liberation of Auschwitz, without having to worry about out any arrest. Depending on how Hungary’s actions are resolved, the ICC will lose much of it’s use if member states just ignore the treaty.
    - SllX 1y ago
      Just to add to your point, Germany’s Chancellor Merz has also extended an invitation to Netanyahu: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/election-winner-merz-invites-netanyahu-germany-says-israelis-office-2025-02-24/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/election-winner-merz-in... Hungary though technically still a party, is withdrawing from the Rome Statute: https://www.reuters.com/world/hungarian-lawmakers-approve-bill-quit-international-criminal-court-2025-05-20/ https://www.reuters.com/world/hungarian-lawmakers-approve-bi...
    - kragen 1y ago
      Netanyahu isn't "a sitting or former POTUS, their direct subordinates or military personnel", the arrest of which is the event you said "the ICC would fall shortly after". That's what I disagreed with.
- FpUser 1y ago
  Then one should add K to ICC as for Kangaroo.

kragen 1y ago

Historically speaking, Westphalian sovereignty meant that there was no such thing as an "international criminal court", nor "war crimes". An ICC party such as France hypothetically arresting, for example, Netanyahu, for things that he did in Israel, would amount to a substantial erosion of Israel's sovereignty in the Westphalian sense. Under the Westphalian system, Israel's prince would have sole jurisdiction in such cases. Of course, that doesn't necessarily tell us anything about whether it's good or bad. Eroding Westphalian sovereignty in such a sense is the whole point of the ICC, the EU, and arguably even the UN (though, of these three, only the ICC would have the particular result described in my previous paragraph). But it's worth pointing out that it's a major difference from centuries of historical precedents, not American exceptionalism.

bertil 1y ago
The Westphalian sovereignty that you describe would refuse the authority of the Nuremberg trials.
- FpUser 1y ago
  The winner takes it all ...
- kragen 1y ago
  Maybe, but I think Westphalian sovereignty generally permitted conquerors to dispose of the conquered as they saw fit. It's not a moral system, just a Schelling point.
- senderista 1y ago
  The Nuremberg trials were just victor's justice, as demonstrated by the total impunity for all war crimes committed by the USSR.
  - FpUser 1y ago
    Contrary to the US being severely punished for their crimes ...