5 ms·

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

by 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?
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > the ICC also has a rule: it does not accept cases unless the government on the ground actually upholds the Rome statute Source?
  - dlubarov 1y ago
    > There is hamas and the PA, who aren't UN accepted governments of any territory whatsoever, who both have signed the Rome statute This is half-right - officially only the State of Palestine (really Abbas, the PA president) has signed, Hamas hasn't. Presumably the ICC wouldn't recognize Hamas as a member even if they tried to sign, since they operate under the fiction that the PA is the de jure government of Gaza (despite never having controlled it).
- daft_pink 1y ago
  I think there is additionally a question about whether you can apply laws and the legal system to war. It just seems very impractical to accept the death of your own soldiers in the face of an enemy that hides behind their population as human shields.
YZF 1y ago
[flagged]
- nabla9 1y ago
  The court has jurisdiction. Gaza is not part of Israel by any law. It's a direct application of 1949 Geneva Conventions. Most Israeli legal scholars agree that Israel's defense does not work.
  - YZF 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - wtfwhateven 1y ago
      >I'm not a lawyer but it is not sufficient for Gaza not to be considered "part of Israel". How? >Technically Gaza should either be Egyptian or Israeli. What? No. Why on earth would that be the case? >There is no state of Palestine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_Palestine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_P... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine You don't need to be a lawyer to understand there definitely is a state of Palestine.
      - YZF 1y ago
        [flagged]
        wtfwhateven 1y ago
        >What are the recognized borders of the state of Palestine? >If it's a state why isn't it a member of the UN? Because the US keeps vetoing their membership despite overwhelming support? Refer to the linked articles. The fact you're asking these questions means you've refused to read them. >That countries recognize a non-existent state called Palestine doesn't mean it exists Nonsense. 80% of UN members recognize it. A state that exists. More than enough for any reasonable person. The only thing stopping their membership is the US. Your insistence it does not exist and 80% of UN members are hallucinating is bizarre. Your denial of reality does not mean it ceases to exist. If it somehow doesn't exist then how come most of the UN recognizes it? >It is not sufficient that Gaza is not considered part of Israel because for the ICC to have jurisdiction it needs to be a member of the ICC and needs to have ratified the Rome convention. Great. It is both a member of the ICC and has ratified the Rome convention. >Gaza should be either Egyptian or Israeli No at all. >because after 1948 it was a part of Egypt and was occupied from Egypt by Israel during the 1967 six day war. Nonsensical reasoning. Occupying some land doesn't make it permanently or retroactively yours with no possibility of change. Palestine existed prior to Israel. It seems your understanding is that Palestine suddenly started to exist after Israel's founding. Please refresh your understanding of the history and facts. >By this precedent the ICC can have jurisdiction anywhere including inside the US, as long as some other countries decide the US isn't really the US. Sure if in this hypothetical scenario this state existed prior to the founding of the US and most of the world recognized it as such. Your analogy simply doesn't apply otherwise.

by nabla9 1y ago

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?
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > the ICC also has a rule: it does not accept cases unless the government on the ground actually upholds the Rome statute Source?
- dlubarov 1y ago
  > There is hamas and the PA, who aren't UN accepted governments of any territory whatsoever, who both have signed the Rome statute This is half-right - officially only the State of Palestine (really Abbas, the PA president) has signed, Hamas hasn't. Presumably the ICC wouldn't recognize Hamas as a member even if they tried to sign, since they operate under the fiction that the PA is the de jure government of Gaza (despite never having controlled it).
daft_pink 1y ago
I think there is additionally a question about whether you can apply laws and the legal system to war. It just seems very impractical to accept the death of your own soldiers in the face of an enemy that hides behind their population as human shields.

YZF 1y ago

[flagged]

nabla9 1y ago
The court has jurisdiction. Gaza is not part of Israel by any law. It's a direct application of 1949 Geneva Conventions. Most Israeli legal scholars agree that Israel's defense does not work.
- YZF 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - wtfwhateven 1y ago
    >I'm not a lawyer but it is not sufficient for Gaza not to be considered "part of Israel". How? >Technically Gaza should either be Egyptian or Israeli. What? No. Why on earth would that be the case? >There is no state of Palestine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_Palestine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_P... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine You don't need to be a lawyer to understand there definitely is a state of Palestine.
    - YZF 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - wtfwhateven 1y ago
        >What are the recognized borders of the state of Palestine? >If it's a state why isn't it a member of the UN? Because the US keeps vetoing their membership despite overwhelming support? Refer to the linked articles. The fact you're asking these questions means you've refused to read them. >That countries recognize a non-existent state called Palestine doesn't mean it exists Nonsense. 80% of UN members recognize it. A state that exists. More than enough for any reasonable person. The only thing stopping their membership is the US. Your insistence it does not exist and 80% of UN members are hallucinating is bizarre. Your denial of reality does not mean it ceases to exist. If it somehow doesn't exist then how come most of the UN recognizes it? >It is not sufficient that Gaza is not considered part of Israel because for the ICC to have jurisdiction it needs to be a member of the ICC and needs to have ratified the Rome convention. Great. It is both a member of the ICC and has ratified the Rome convention. >Gaza should be either Egyptian or Israeli No at all. >because after 1948 it was a part of Egypt and was occupied from Egypt by Israel during the 1967 six day war. Nonsensical reasoning. Occupying some land doesn't make it permanently or retroactively yours with no possibility of change. Palestine existed prior to Israel. It seems your understanding is that Palestine suddenly started to exist after Israel's founding. Please refresh your understanding of the history and facts. >By this precedent the ICC can have jurisdiction anywhere including inside the US, as long as some other countries decide the US isn't really the US. Sure if in this hypothetical scenario this state existed prior to the founding of the US and most of the world recognized it as such. Your analogy simply doesn't apply otherwise.