6 ms·

ICC Judge Guillou loses all US IT accounts after MAGA sanctions [FR]

90 points by henearkr 1y ago

mikkupikku 1y ago
> MAGA What's even in it for America? This is "Make Israel Great Again" politics.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > What's even in it for America? Washington has brokered a peace deal that it’s very proud of and expects a Nobel Peace prize for if it holds. At this point, we’re dealing with one man’s ego more than any policy position of the United States.
  - churchill 1y ago
    Stop the self-deception. America hates accountability so much that it has laws on the books guaranteeing that it'll invade the Hague (killing thousands of Dutch citizens, inevitably) if US servicemembers are ever detained there for crimes against humanity. This is just a rogue state going mask-off. Imagine if China or Russia even suggested the same willingness during a press conversation, let alone making a law to that effect.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - nmstoker 1y ago
      [Edited] I see you corrected it now! Previously: I think you mean Dutch citizens, given that the Hague is in the Netherlands and not Switzerland.
      - churchill 1y ago
        Thanks!
  - wombatpm 1y ago
    Well let’s not forget the extrajudicial murders in international waters the US is currently performing.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > let’s not forget the extrajudicial murders in international waters the US is currently performing Sure. Every one of the great powers is currently engaging in killings that are highly illegal under international law.
      - tastyface 1y ago
        > On the flight home, Stephen Miller — then a senior advisor to the president — sat down across from me and the head of the U.S. Coast Guard. What followed was a conversation I’ll never forget. > “Admiral,” Miller asked, “the military has aerial drones, correct?” > “Yes,” the Admiral answered. > “And some of those drones are equipped with missiles, correct?” > “Sure,” the Admiral said, beginning to catch on. > Miller pressed further: “And when a boat full of migrants is in international waters, they aren’t protected by the U.S. Constitution, right?” > The Admiral clarified that while technically true, international law still applied. > “Then tell me why,” Miller said, “can’t we use a Predator drone to obliterate that boat?” > The Admiral, a veteran of military command, was dumbfounded. “Because it would be against international law,” he replied. You can’t kill unarmed civilians just because you want to. > Stephen Miller didn’t appear interested in the legal implications. Indeed, he seemed more interested in whether anyone could stop Trump from committing such acts. > “Admiral,” he concluded, “I don’t think you understand the limitations of international law.” (From: https://archive.ph/20250922161327/https://www.treason.io/p/read-one-step-closer-to-bombing-civilians https://archive.ph/20250922161327/https://www.treason.io/p/r...) And then: "Stephen Miller takes leading role in strikes on alleged Venezuelan drug boats" (From: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/29/stephen-miller-venezuela-drug-boat-strike https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/29/stephen-mill...) "Every great power" is not currently doing this kind of shit. This is a straight-on white supremacist murder party.
        1y ago
  - C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 1y ago
    It's not a peace deal. It doesn't address any Palestinian concern other than a novel one that is stopping 2 years of constant bombardement (replaced by low-intensity fighting via proxy militias, and smaller scale killings of people who even approach the newly-declared border). Palestinian resistance got nothing out of it, as Israel has abducted and thrown into prisons more people over the past 2 years than it has released through the hostage swaps.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > It's not a peace deal. It doesn't address any Palestinian concern other than a novel one that is stopping 2 years of constant bombardement That's true for any negotiated, i.e. conditional, armistice. If you want one side to be happy, you have to press for unconditional surrender. Palestine doesn't have the capability to force Israel to unconditionally surrender. In any case, what we call it is irrelevant. (What the Norwegian Noble Committee calls it is irrelevant.) What matters is what the President thinks. And he thinks it's a peace deal that could make him a Nobel laureate. Which gives him an interest in not letting, as he sees it, an ICC judge mess with his deal. > Palestinian resistance got nothing out of it No shit. The October 7 attacks were terrorist attacks. The literature on terrorism is they extremely rarely achieve their political goals.
      - C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 1y ago
        > That's true for any negotiated, i.e. conditional, armistice. If you want one side to be happy, you have to press for unconditional surrender. Palestine doesn't have the capability to force Israel to unconditionally surrender. It's still not a peace deal. It does look more akin to surrender of fighting by the palestinian resistance, motivated by the civillian population reaching a breaking point because of the starvation and bombing. Moral of the story is that collective punishment works, I suppose. > The October 7 attacks were terrorist attacks There is no logically-consistent definition you can provide that would make that raid a terrorist attack without also capturing Israel's actions as terrorist attacks. The aggressive actions they took that day have been outdone 100-fold by Israel. The prisoners they took were a drop in the sea compared to the number of people Israel held in "administrative detention" alone, let alone all the people they randomly snatch with some bogus accusations. The state in which those prisoners returned compared to the state in which palestinian prisoners returned are day and night. When their acts are compared objectively, the conclusions never go in Israel's favor.
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
The ICC was born out of the Rome Statute, signed in 2002 [1]. It reflects the optimism of the 1990s’ newly unipolar world, one in which a rules-based international order —guaranteed by the United States—would reign supreme. That world started falling apart after 9/11 (specifically, the Bush administration’s response to it). It shattered with Xi pressing into the South China Sea and Russia annexing Crimea, though it wasn’t obvious it was lost until Putin blew into Ukraine and Trump 47. Washington shouldn’t be sanctioning the ICC. It has no jurisdiction over America; what we’re doing is akin to water ballooning the girls’ sleepover. But the Rome Statute’s signatories should find a new method for ensuring the dream of universal human rights isn’t lost. Continuing to bet on the ICC is continuing to bet on a dead horse. More of the world’s population, most of its economy, sits outside Statute signatory members. If we let the failed implementation get convoluted with the ideals that gave rise to it, we risk losing both for a generation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute
- churchill 1y ago
  That's a lot of fancy words to say, "America is a rogue regime that believes might makes right despite all the human rights, morals, and God bless America bullshit." I actually don't mind tyranny on some level if I can't do anything against them. it just feels good having the mask of righteousness & honor fall off so that the world can see the ugly, unvarnished, hypocritical beast under the makeup.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > lot of fancy words to say, "America is a rogue regime I’m saying all the great powers are rogue regimes by this definition. The only place the ICC applied was Europe, but now even it is ignoring its rulings. The consensus that restrained the might makes right default of international relations has failed.
    - churchill 1y ago
      Here's why I don't apply the same metric/standard to China & Russia. They don't pontificate about their morals. They're mask-off about their Schmittian approach to power. Western countries preach about morals, human rights, rules-based order, and all kinds of bullshit but always seem to violate their acclaimed principles every Wednesday. China sells weapons to everyone who has money, works with all kinds of regimes, and generally have a non-interventionist policy. That's why smaller countries tend to prefer partnering with them. They're not your fairy godmother, but at least they're honest about what they want.
mullingitover 1y ago
What a great way for US firms to be branded (more accurately: observed to be) unreliable partners. Long term this is a fantastic way to dilute US influence globally. Solid play on the part of the US' adversaries to have their agent perform this move on their behalf. /s
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- Herring 1y ago
  It's easy to blame adversaries, but US conservatives have had a self-destructive self-hating political culture for a very long time. You don't have to go further than COVID masks/vaccinations/lockdowns to see it in action.
Cheer2171 1y ago
Translated: > For starters, all accounts opened at US providers (Amazon, Airbnb, Netflix, Paypal, etc.) are immediately closed. The delivery companies whose capital is American stop delivering the ordered parcels, and the magistrate says that a hotel reservation taken for a stay in France has been blocked by the Expedia platform in the name of the sanctions to which he is subject. > This is further complicated by the possible interruption of the payment methods that pass through the Visa or Mastercard networks. Nor can it make bank transfers via intermediaries like Western Union.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- greatpatton 1y ago
  At some point the EU just should impose sanction on companies operating in the EU and implementing this kind of sanction.
- btown 1y ago
  Something I wonder is that, as mandated cryptographic checks for even sideloaded apps roll out to the Android ecosystem [0][1], is the provision of the capacity to install (or even use) applications in violation of sanctions? Is Google required to essentially brick the phone of any sanctioned user using any of the international vendors here [2]? Certainly I would say the answer is at the very least "maybe," especially with how export restrictions have historically treated cryptography of all kinds. It's really important to keep this in mind - it's not just about your ability to install unapproved apps, it's about basic levels of access to one's contacts, photographed memories, and fundamental ability to communicate. And this can be applied to anyone the increasingly-authoritarian U.S. government considers not even a threat, but politically expedient to paint as one. [0] https://9to5google.com/2025/08/25/android-apps-developer-verification/ https://9to5google.com/2025/08/25/android-apps-developer-ver... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45017028 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45017028 [2] https://www.android.com/certified/partners/ https://www.android.com/certified/partners/
  - impossiblefork 1y ago
nabla9 1y ago
The arrest warrants are as solid as humanly possible. Before the arrest warrant by the Judge, before the ICC prosecutor even attempted to ask for arrest, they asked second opinion from a Panel of Experts in International Law that included top experts, including Theodor Meron; Hebrew University (M.J.), Harvard Law School (LL.M., J.S.D.) and Cambridge University (Diploma in Public International Law) who was once was a legal adviser of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, then Israeli Ambassador in Canada, President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and so on. The panel unanimously agreed with the prosecutor.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > arrest warrants are as solid as humanly possible This isn’t a debate around this international law, but international law broadly. The ICC has no jurisdiction in America, Russia or China. Nor India, Pakistan, Indonesia and a host of other states. Most of the world’s population and most of the world’s economy isn’t subject to it. (Even those who are find convenient excuses for not enforcing its warrants.) International law experts will agree these warrants are legal because per international law they are. The broader debate being missed is what role international law has to play in a multipolar world. Historically, and by that I mean Metternich’s peace, the law that matters in multipolar international politics is only that which the great powers agree to, and only so long as they agree to it.
  - computerthings 1y ago
    [dead]
  - spwa4 1y ago
    > The ICC has no jurisdiction in America, Russia or China. Nor India, Pakistan ... That is because the ICC has no jurisdiction unless the UN accepted government of the involved territory grants them jurisdiction. The only UN accepted government in Israel is the Israeli government. So according to the Rome statute, only Israel's government gets to decide if a case on Israel's territory (and Gaza is Israeli territory) is allowed to proceed, and of course, they don't want this case to proceed. There is hamas and the PA, who aren't UN accepted governments of any territory whatsoever, who both have signed the Rome statute but have also both sworn to never carry out any ICC judgement. So now there's ONE exception: The ICC asserts jurisdiction, against the will of the local government, in ONE single location: Israel. In fact the ICC adjusted it's own rules to do this. Is the ICC allowed to change it's own rules? Well, no, of course it isn't. Yet the case is proceeding. There's another problem, the ICC also has a rule: it does not accept cases unless the government on the ground actually upholds the Rome statute. Now here there's more exceptions. South Africa, Mongolia, Hungary, Sudan, and others have all signed the Rome treaty but have openly violated it, and the ICC has refused their cases ... sometimes. Now of course, Palestine is another example: both Hamas and the PA have signed the Rome Statute (hamas did when they went for election in 2006), have never left it and refused to carry it out when called upon. Now to be fair the ICC refused the Palestinian case, and them refusing to uphold the ICC treaty they signed was a factor in that. But South Africa was allowed to lodge a complaint, despite that they also refused to carry out the ICC treaty (2 cases: against the Sudanese president Assad and sort-of against Russian president Putin). Again the ICC changed it's rules, again, to allow the case to move forward. Even at the ICC, starting cases after you've declared you'll never accept any judgement if you lose is not allowed. That the case is still proceeding means justice and respecting international treaties has long gone out the window. The point here is that the government of Palestine shouldn't be allowed to start cases at the ICC, according to Rome treaty rules, because their governments aren't accepted. AND they shouldn't allowed to start cases, because they have declared they have no intention of ever carrying out ICC arrest warrants against Palestinians and have no intention of doing so (in fact both Hamas spokesmen and Abbas have shouted, repeatedly and loudly, on TV that they will never ever carry out an ICC decision against a Palestinian). Oh and Hamas is a terrorist organization that itself is outlawed by the UN. So there is a bit of a question what a conviction of Israel would prove, now that the ICC has changed it's own rules, "illegally", TWICE to even allow a case to be brought, and will have to do so a third time to convict (that's what the whole intent issue is about). Currently the court has tried "to be fair" by issuing arrest warrants on both sides, but of course nobody, least of all Palestinians, discuss the little detail that Palestine is facing the exact same accusation as Israel (and technically the court has declared that hamas did commit genocide on October 7 2023, with full intent, even if they stopped short of convicting them there and then). Of course changing the law to convict a Jew because of politics is nothing new. There's also the question of what any outcome of this case would accomplish, since Israel has withdrawn from the Rome treaty long before the case was brought, and so won't carry out any court decision (and that's legal according to UN law), and while Palestine has signed the Rome treaty, they have sworn and openly declared many times they won't carry out any court decision (illegally, as in the signed treaties saying they would carry them out, then just don't do it) (and the question "If Palestine signs treaties then doesn't carry them out, what's the point of any treaties with them?" isn't allowed to be discussed). Neither the court, nor the UN, have any power to carry out a decision themselves. So what is the point of the case, exactly? Frankly, clearly for Palestinians this case isn't being fought on merit but on politics. And if it's fought on politics, then what is the problem with what Trump and Israel are doing?
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
andrewaylett 1y ago
As much as I approve of sanctions in the general case as a tool for projecting political pressure, general sanctions against citizens of an ally are a definite indication (if more were needed) that the sanctioning country is at best an unreliable ally. Targeted sanctions against an allied state can be good: they're a tool for a state to say that as as friends we won't help you with a specific thing (often an ill-advised military action). General sanctions against a non-ally can be good too, and extending the sanctions to politically-important figures makes sense (for example, Russia and oligarchs). General sanctions against individuals where their country isn't sanctioned? That's bullying. The ICC derives its authority from its members, and if the US doesn't like that then it should take that up with the member states, not the individuals. International politics is fuzzy enough (and the current public face of the USA is unstable enough) that it's definitely not a good idea -- but I'm tempted to say that we (as in: the UK) should draw a line and tell the US that if they want to play silly games then they're going to win silly prizes. And that if they want to sanction ICC officials (or, indeed, officials of other organisations that we participate in as a country) then they'll need to sanction the whole of the UK. It's probably a good thing I'm not a politician.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > if they want to sanction ICC officials (or, indeed, officials of other organisations that we participate in as a country) then they'll need to sanction the whole of the UK. It's probably a good thing I'm not a politician The fact that this would probably cost the governing party their rule is why the ICC has been failing. Elites love it. Ordinary people couldn’t be fucked.
- anonymous908213 1y ago
  > As much as I approve of sanctions in the general case as a tool for projecting political pressure Can I ask you why you approve of them? The only people they hurt are the average everyday citizens, the working poor in the target country. And while the naive expectation might be that the economic hardship would lead to them turning on their government and pressuring them to correct the behaviour that lead to sanctions, in turns out in practice it actually boosts support for their government as they come to see the sanctioning countries as their enemies. It should be abundantly clear how much of a failure sanctions are from how easily Russia ignores them while continuing to invade Ukraine for three years and counting. North Korea has been subject to a virtually global embargo since 1950, a full 75 years at this point. It has not affected the position of their government in any way at all, nor did it prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons, but has rendered the people utterly desolate to the point of mostly not even having electricity. See also Cuba, Iran. I would really like to know what people see in this policy that seems to only exist to inflict undue suffering.
Qem 1y ago
> Nicolas Guillou is a French magistrate who practises as a judge at the International Criminal Court (ICC). He was elected to this post in March 2024 for a 10-year term: he currently chairs Pre-Trial Chamber I on the situation in the State of Palestine It's baffling the lenghts US politicians go to enforce apartheid against the palestinians, on the Tel-Aviv regime behalf, even when it threatens US business interests abroad. Any government worth their salt must be running from US based information technology infrastructure like it were the plague.

90 points by henearkr 1y ago

mikkupikku 1y ago

> MAGA What's even in it for America? This is "Make Israel Great Again" politics.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> What's even in it for America? Washington has brokered a peace deal that it’s very proud of and expects a Nobel Peace prize for if it holds. At this point, we’re dealing with one man’s ego more than any policy position of the United States.
- churchill 1y ago
  Stop the self-deception. America hates accountability so much that it has laws on the books guaranteeing that it'll invade the Hague (killing thousands of Dutch citizens, inevitably) if US servicemembers are ever detained there for crimes against humanity. This is just a rogue state going mask-off. Imagine if China or Russia even suggested the same willingness during a press conversation, let alone making a law to that effect.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - nmstoker 1y ago
    [Edited] I see you corrected it now! Previously: I think you mean Dutch citizens, given that the Hague is in the Netherlands and not Switzerland.
    - churchill 1y ago
      Thanks!
- wombatpm 1y ago
  Well let’s not forget the extrajudicial murders in international waters the US is currently performing.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > let’s not forget the extrajudicial murders in international waters the US is currently performing Sure. Every one of the great powers is currently engaging in killings that are highly illegal under international law.
    - tastyface 1y ago
      > On the flight home, Stephen Miller — then a senior advisor to the president — sat down across from me and the head of the U.S. Coast Guard. What followed was a conversation I’ll never forget. > “Admiral,” Miller asked, “the military has aerial drones, correct?” > “Yes,” the Admiral answered. > “And some of those drones are equipped with missiles, correct?” > “Sure,” the Admiral said, beginning to catch on. > Miller pressed further: “And when a boat full of migrants is in international waters, they aren’t protected by the U.S. Constitution, right?” > The Admiral clarified that while technically true, international law still applied. > “Then tell me why,” Miller said, “can’t we use a Predator drone to obliterate that boat?” > The Admiral, a veteran of military command, was dumbfounded. “Because it would be against international law,” he replied. You can’t kill unarmed civilians just because you want to. > Stephen Miller didn’t appear interested in the legal implications. Indeed, he seemed more interested in whether anyone could stop Trump from committing such acts. > “Admiral,” he concluded, “I don’t think you understand the limitations of international law.” (From: https://archive.ph/20250922161327/https://www.treason.io/p/read-one-step-closer-to-bombing-civilians https://archive.ph/20250922161327/https://www.treason.io/p/r...) And then: "Stephen Miller takes leading role in strikes on alleged Venezuelan drug boats" (From: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/29/stephen-miller-venezuela-drug-boat-strike https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/29/stephen-mill...) "Every great power" is not currently doing this kind of shit. This is a straight-on white supremacist murder party.
      - 1y ago
- C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 1y ago
  It's not a peace deal. It doesn't address any Palestinian concern other than a novel one that is stopping 2 years of constant bombardement (replaced by low-intensity fighting via proxy militias, and smaller scale killings of people who even approach the newly-declared border). Palestinian resistance got nothing out of it, as Israel has abducted and thrown into prisons more people over the past 2 years than it has released through the hostage swaps.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > It's not a peace deal. It doesn't address any Palestinian concern other than a novel one that is stopping 2 years of constant bombardement That's true for any negotiated, i.e. conditional, armistice. If you want one side to be happy, you have to press for unconditional surrender. Palestine doesn't have the capability to force Israel to unconditionally surrender. In any case, what we call it is irrelevant. (What the Norwegian Noble Committee calls it is irrelevant.) What matters is what the President thinks. And he thinks it's a peace deal that could make him a Nobel laureate. Which gives him an interest in not letting, as he sees it, an ICC judge mess with his deal. > Palestinian resistance got nothing out of it No shit. The October 7 attacks were terrorist attacks. The literature on terrorism is they extremely rarely achieve their political goals.
    - C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 1y ago
      > That's true for any negotiated, i.e. conditional, armistice. If you want one side to be happy, you have to press for unconditional surrender. Palestine doesn't have the capability to force Israel to unconditionally surrender. It's still not a peace deal. It does look more akin to surrender of fighting by the palestinian resistance, motivated by the civillian population reaching a breaking point because of the starvation and bombing. Moral of the story is that collective punishment works, I suppose. > The October 7 attacks were terrorist attacks There is no logically-consistent definition you can provide that would make that raid a terrorist attack without also capturing Israel's actions as terrorist attacks. The aggressive actions they took that day have been outdone 100-fold by Israel. The prisoners they took were a drop in the sea compared to the number of people Israel held in "administrative detention" alone, let alone all the people they randomly snatch with some bogus accusations. The state in which those prisoners returned compared to the state in which palestinian prisoners returned are day and night. When their acts are compared objectively, the conclusions never go in Israel's favor.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

The ICC was born out of the Rome Statute, signed in 2002 [1]. It reflects the optimism of the 1990s’ newly unipolar world, one in which a rules-based international order —guaranteed by the United States—would reign supreme. That world started falling apart after 9/11 (specifically, the Bush administration’s response to it). It shattered with Xi pressing into the South China Sea and Russia annexing Crimea, though it wasn’t obvious it was lost until Putin blew into Ukraine and Trump 47. Washington shouldn’t be sanctioning the ICC. It has no jurisdiction over America; what we’re doing is akin to water ballooning the girls’ sleepover. But the Rome Statute’s signatories should find a new method for ensuring the dream of universal human rights isn’t lost. Continuing to bet on the ICC is continuing to bet on a dead horse. More of the world’s population, most of its economy, sits outside Statute signatory members. If we let the failed implementation get convoluted with the ideals that gave rise to it, we risk losing both for a generation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute

churchill 1y ago
That's a lot of fancy words to say, "America is a rogue regime that believes might makes right despite all the human rights, morals, and God bless America bullshit." I actually don't mind tyranny on some level if I can't do anything against them. it just feels good having the mask of righteousness & honor fall off so that the world can see the ugly, unvarnished, hypocritical beast under the makeup.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > lot of fancy words to say, "America is a rogue regime I’m saying all the great powers are rogue regimes by this definition. The only place the ICC applied was Europe, but now even it is ignoring its rulings. The consensus that restrained the might makes right default of international relations has failed.
  - churchill 1y ago
    Here's why I don't apply the same metric/standard to China & Russia. They don't pontificate about their morals. They're mask-off about their Schmittian approach to power. Western countries preach about morals, human rights, rules-based order, and all kinds of bullshit but always seem to violate their acclaimed principles every Wednesday. China sells weapons to everyone who has money, works with all kinds of regimes, and generally have a non-interventionist policy. That's why smaller countries tend to prefer partnering with them. They're not your fairy godmother, but at least they're honest about what they want.

mullingitover 1y ago

What a great way for US firms to be branded (more accurately: observed to be) unreliable partners. Long term this is a fantastic way to dilute US influence globally. Solid play on the part of the US' adversaries to have their agent perform this move on their behalf. /s

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
Herring 1y ago
It's easy to blame adversaries, but US conservatives have had a self-destructive self-hating political culture for a very long time. You don't have to go further than COVID masks/vaccinations/lockdowns to see it in action.

Cheer2171 1y ago

Translated: > For starters, all accounts opened at US providers (Amazon, Airbnb, Netflix, Paypal, etc.) are immediately closed. The delivery companies whose capital is American stop delivering the ordered parcels, and the magistrate says that a hotel reservation taken for a stay in France has been blocked by the Expedia platform in the name of the sanctions to which he is subject. > This is further complicated by the possible interruption of the payment methods that pass through the Visa or Mastercard networks. Nor can it make bank transfers via intermediaries like Western Union.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
greatpatton 1y ago
At some point the EU just should impose sanction on companies operating in the EU and implementing this kind of sanction.
btown 1y ago
Something I wonder is that, as mandated cryptographic checks for even sideloaded apps roll out to the Android ecosystem [0][1], is the provision of the capacity to install (or even use) applications in violation of sanctions? Is Google required to essentially brick the phone of any sanctioned user using any of the international vendors here [2]? Certainly I would say the answer is at the very least "maybe," especially with how export restrictions have historically treated cryptography of all kinds. It's really important to keep this in mind - it's not just about your ability to install unapproved apps, it's about basic levels of access to one's contacts, photographed memories, and fundamental ability to communicate. And this can be applied to anyone the increasingly-authoritarian U.S. government considers not even a threat, but politically expedient to paint as one. [0] https://9to5google.com/2025/08/25/android-apps-developer-verification/ https://9to5google.com/2025/08/25/android-apps-developer-ver... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45017028 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45017028 [2] https://www.android.com/certified/partners/ https://www.android.com/certified/partners/
- impossiblefork 1y ago

nabla9 1y ago

The arrest warrants are as solid as humanly possible. Before the arrest warrant by the Judge, before the ICC prosecutor even attempted to ask for arrest, they asked second opinion from a Panel of Experts in International Law that included top experts, including Theodor Meron; Hebrew University (M.J.), Harvard Law School (LL.M., J.S.D.) and Cambridge University (Diploma in Public International Law) who was once was a legal adviser of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, then Israeli Ambassador in Canada, President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and so on. The panel unanimously agreed with the prosecutor.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> arrest warrants are as solid as humanly possible This isn’t a debate around this international law, but international law broadly. The ICC has no jurisdiction in America, Russia or China. Nor India, Pakistan, Indonesia and a host of other states. Most of the world’s population and most of the world’s economy isn’t subject to it. (Even those who are find convenient excuses for not enforcing its warrants.) International law experts will agree these warrants are legal because per international law they are. The broader debate being missed is what role international law has to play in a multipolar world. Historically, and by that I mean Metternich’s peace, the law that matters in multipolar international politics is only that which the great powers agree to, and only so long as they agree to it.
- computerthings 1y ago
  [dead]
- spwa4 1y ago
  > The ICC has no jurisdiction in America, Russia or China. Nor India, Pakistan ... That is because the ICC has no jurisdiction unless the UN accepted government of the involved territory grants them jurisdiction. The only UN accepted government in Israel is the Israeli government. So according to the Rome statute, only Israel's government gets to decide if a case on Israel's territory (and Gaza is Israeli territory) is allowed to proceed, and of course, they don't want this case to proceed. There is hamas and the PA, who aren't UN accepted governments of any territory whatsoever, who both have signed the Rome statute but have also both sworn to never carry out any ICC judgement. So now there's ONE exception: The ICC asserts jurisdiction, against the will of the local government, in ONE single location: Israel. In fact the ICC adjusted it's own rules to do this. Is the ICC allowed to change it's own rules? Well, no, of course it isn't. Yet the case is proceeding. There's another problem, the ICC also has a rule: it does not accept cases unless the government on the ground actually upholds the Rome statute. Now here there's more exceptions. South Africa, Mongolia, Hungary, Sudan, and others have all signed the Rome treaty but have openly violated it, and the ICC has refused their cases ... sometimes. Now of course, Palestine is another example: both Hamas and the PA have signed the Rome Statute (hamas did when they went for election in 2006), have never left it and refused to carry it out when called upon. Now to be fair the ICC refused the Palestinian case, and them refusing to uphold the ICC treaty they signed was a factor in that. But South Africa was allowed to lodge a complaint, despite that they also refused to carry out the ICC treaty (2 cases: against the Sudanese president Assad and sort-of against Russian president Putin). Again the ICC changed it's rules, again, to allow the case to move forward. Even at the ICC, starting cases after you've declared you'll never accept any judgement if you lose is not allowed. That the case is still proceeding means justice and respecting international treaties has long gone out the window. The point here is that the government of Palestine shouldn't be allowed to start cases at the ICC, according to Rome treaty rules, because their governments aren't accepted. AND they shouldn't allowed to start cases, because they have declared they have no intention of ever carrying out ICC arrest warrants against Palestinians and have no intention of doing so (in fact both Hamas spokesmen and Abbas have shouted, repeatedly and loudly, on TV that they will never ever carry out an ICC decision against a Palestinian). Oh and Hamas is a terrorist organization that itself is outlawed by the UN. So there is a bit of a question what a conviction of Israel would prove, now that the ICC has changed it's own rules, "illegally", TWICE to even allow a case to be brought, and will have to do so a third time to convict (that's what the whole intent issue is about). Currently the court has tried "to be fair" by issuing arrest warrants on both sides, but of course nobody, least of all Palestinians, discuss the little detail that Palestine is facing the exact same accusation as Israel (and technically the court has declared that hamas did commit genocide on October 7 2023, with full intent, even if they stopped short of convicting them there and then). Of course changing the law to convict a Jew because of politics is nothing new. There's also the question of what any outcome of this case would accomplish, since Israel has withdrawn from the Rome treaty long before the case was brought, and so won't carry out any court decision (and that's legal according to UN law), and while Palestine has signed the Rome treaty, they have sworn and openly declared many times they won't carry out any court decision (illegally, as in the signed treaties saying they would carry them out, then just don't do it) (and the question "If Palestine signs treaties then doesn't carry them out, what's the point of any treaties with them?" isn't allowed to be discussed). Neither the court, nor the UN, have any power to carry out a decision themselves. So what is the point of the case, exactly? Frankly, clearly for Palestinians this case isn't being fought on merit but on politics. And if it's fought on politics, then what is the problem with what Trump and Israel are doing?

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

andrewaylett 1y ago

As much as I approve of sanctions in the general case as a tool for projecting political pressure, general sanctions against citizens of an ally are a definite indication (if more were needed) that the sanctioning country is at best an unreliable ally. Targeted sanctions against an allied state can be good: they're a tool for a state to say that as as friends we won't help you with a specific thing (often an ill-advised military action). General sanctions against a non-ally can be good too, and extending the sanctions to politically-important figures makes sense (for example, Russia and oligarchs). General sanctions against individuals where their country isn't sanctioned? That's bullying. The ICC derives its authority from its members, and if the US doesn't like that then it should take that up with the member states, not the individuals. International politics is fuzzy enough (and the current public face of the USA is unstable enough) that it's definitely not a good idea -- but I'm tempted to say that we (as in: the UK) should draw a line and tell the US that if they want to play silly games then they're going to win silly prizes. And that if they want to sanction ICC officials (or, indeed, officials of other organisations that we participate in as a country) then they'll need to sanction the whole of the UK. It's probably a good thing I'm not a politician.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> if they want to sanction ICC officials (or, indeed, officials of other organisations that we participate in as a country) then they'll need to sanction the whole of the UK. It's probably a good thing I'm not a politician The fact that this would probably cost the governing party their rule is why the ICC has been failing. Elites love it. Ordinary people couldn’t be fucked.
anonymous908213 1y ago
> As much as I approve of sanctions in the general case as a tool for projecting political pressure Can I ask you why you approve of them? The only people they hurt are the average everyday citizens, the working poor in the target country. And while the naive expectation might be that the economic hardship would lead to them turning on their government and pressuring them to correct the behaviour that lead to sanctions, in turns out in practice it actually boosts support for their government as they come to see the sanctioning countries as their enemies. It should be abundantly clear how much of a failure sanctions are from how easily Russia ignores them while continuing to invade Ukraine for three years and counting. North Korea has been subject to a virtually global embargo since 1950, a full 75 years at this point. It has not affected the position of their government in any way at all, nor did it prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons, but has rendered the people utterly desolate to the point of mostly not even having electricity. See also Cuba, Iran. I would really like to know what people see in this policy that seems to only exist to inflict undue suffering.

Qem 1y ago

> Nicolas Guillou is a French magistrate who practises as a judge at the International Criminal Court (ICC). He was elected to this post in March 2024 for a 10-year term: he currently chairs Pre-Trial Chamber I on the situation in the State of Palestine It's baffling the lenghts US politicians go to enforce apartheid against the palestinians, on the Tel-Aviv regime behalf, even when it threatens US business interests abroad. Any government worth their salt must be running from US based information technology infrastructure like it were the plague.