> 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" N

> 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.