4 ms·
Unpopular opinion, but the US and a handful of other countries do not recognize the ICC and in their eyes it does not exist; hence the US has no obligation to s
by ExoticPearTree 10mo ago
Unpopular opinion, but the US and a handful of other countries do not recognize the ICC and in their eyes it does not exist; hence the US has no obligation to support them in any way.
The ICC was warned before picking on Israel, but it did not listen. Now they’re paying the consequences.
- youngtaff 10mo agoThe ICC didn’t ‘pick on Israel’… While the events on Oct 7th were horrific and undoubtedly deserved eliminating Hamas, Israel has collectively punished the civilian population of Gaza in the extreme (as they have been doing for years)
- _aavaa_ 10mo agoLet’s grant the worse case scenario argument against Israel’s actions. Their point still stands: neither Israel nor the USA recognize the authority of the ICC; they have not signed on to the treaty to be governed by it, and hence the ICC does not have the authority to look into either of ther actions.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 10mo agoThey prefer war to justice. Got it.
- saubeidl 10mo agoThe crimes took place in Palestine, which recognizes the ICC.
- eschaton 10mo agoCrimes against humanity are subject to universal jurisdiction. A state need not be a member of the ICC to be subject to its (or any other entity’s) jurisdiction in investigating, prosecuting, and adjudicating such crimes.
- throwaway3060 10mo agoThe US does not recognize such an argument. If that is the argument being made, then no wonder the US issued sanctions; it would perceive such a precedent as a threat to its sovereignty.
- IlikeMadison 10mo agoExcept Netanyahu and Galland are not US citizens. Therefore why is the US so involved in?
- throwaway3060 10mo agoThey don't want the precedent established. Same reason why uninvolved parties in US courts submit "amicus briefs" - the precedent from a case may affect them down the line.
- ExoticPearTree 10mo agoBecause the US protects Israel pretty much at all costs. For the same reason no one attacks Israel for fear of reprisals from the US.
- eschaton 10mo agoThe US doesn’t believe universal jurisdiction applies to it or its vassal states and proxies, which includes Israel. On the other hand, the US didn’t try to prevent Slobodan Milošević from being tried at The Hague for war crimes and genocide, as Serbia wasn’t a vassal state or proxy.
- eschaton 10mo agoNot quite: The US helped invent that argument, and has used it extensively to pursue its foreign policy goals since World War II. What the US has argued historically is that American people and institutions are not subject to it because the US has a functioning civilian and military justice system, and so prosecution for such crimes can be handled within it, even by foreign nations and NGOs. Obviously that’s a load of bullshit, especially (but not only) these days, but “sovereignty for me but not for thee” has long been the rule and with its weakening international position the US may come to find that to be less achievable in the future.
- tzs 10mo agoSince when does authority to look into a country’s actions require consent of that country? Anybody can look into any country’s actions unless that country has authority over them and forbids it.
- kyboren 10mo agoSince 1354. 4 State immunity evolved in close connection to the development of the concept of sovereignty and the territorial State. It can be traced back to the principle of par in parem non habet imperium which was mentioned as early as 1354 by Bartolus de Saxoferrato in his Tractatus de regimine civitatis. It stipulates that a sovereign should not have jurisdiction over another sovereign. [...] 22 State immunity entails that a State itself or its property is not subjected to the proceedings of the court of another State. It does foreclose any proceedings or judgment on the merits, but does not hinder the service of process and a court decision about the admissibility. Likewise, it protects the property of a State against any measure taken in relation to the proceedings. - https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1106 https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/97801992316...
- mrexcess 10mo ago>Their point still stands: neither Israel nor the USA recognize the authority of the ICC Many others have already pointed out the fact here - that Palestine is under ICC jurisdiction. Instead what I want to focus on is WHY YOU DID NOT KNOW THIS, despite the fact that the ICC literally ruled on this matter quite a while ago, specifically. The court itself approached this question, evaluated the evidence, and made a ruling. You missed all that?
- potatototoo99 10mo agoWhat authority did the world have to trial the Nazis at Nuremberg? Countries are going to get called on crimes against humanity, simple as.
- dismalaf 10mo ago> Israel has collectively punished the civilian population of Gaza in the extreme So is any atrocity allowable if you have enough civilian human shields?
- jeltz 10mo agoAre you talking about the IDF or Hamas? Both sides are recorded to have made extensive use of human shields.
- Kim_Bruning 10mo agoICC also charged the responsible Hamas officials at the same time.
- HappyPanacea 10mo agoICC also failed to charge Palestinian authority officials for the money they give war criminals who are in prison because of their actions. Palestinian authority joined the ICC in 2015, 10 years ago plenty of time to act.
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- youngtaff 10mo agoIf we’re going to go down that route then ICC could also charge Israel for funding Hamas The birth of Hamas was quite literally supported by Israel because they wanted to undermine the unity of the Palestinians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_support_for_Hamas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_support_for_Hamas
- kombine 10mo agoIsrael committed crimes against humanity in Palestine over which ICC does have jurisdiction. Whether US supports the ICC or not is irrelevant.
- _aavaa_ 10mo agoWhy does it have jurisdiction? Israel has not ratified the Rome Treaty, and have stated they will not do so. Without that the ICC does not have legal jurisdiction over their actions.
- saubeidl 10mo agoPalestine has. The actions took place there.
- kyboren 10mo agoThere is no such state as 'Palestine'. The PA is widely recognized and has acceded to the Rome Statute, but it has never held sovereignty in Gaza, making ICC's recognition of 'Palestine'--specifically including not only the West Bank but also Gaza and East Jerusalem--as a State Party under Article 12(2)(a) of the Rome Statute dubious at best. But really, it's not dubious at all: It's utterly absurd. ICC claims that since PA claims to represent 'Palestine', and UNGA Resolution 67/19 "Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967", and that since they consider Gaza "Palestinian territory occupied since 1967" (despite the fact that Gaza has certainly not been occupied by Israel for decades and a completely separate entity exercises sovereignty there), therefore 'Palestine' is a State Party properly represented by the PA and covered by its accession to the Rome Statute, and thus the ICC totally have jurisdiction over Gaza.[0] Bonkers. Anyway Israel never acceded to the Rome Statute and the doctrine of state immunity applies. Even if PA were sovereign in Gaza and had properly delegated that sovereignty to the ICC, ICC's claim that Article 12(2)(a) grants them jurisdiction over Israel and Israeli leaders for their actions in Gaza is still a brazen claim to jurisdiction not well supported by customary international law. [0]: https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/itemsDocuments/palestine/210215-palestine-q-a-eng.pdf https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/itemsDocuments/p...
- vidarh 10mo agoThe long term consequence is that the US is proving that the rest of the world how dangerous it is to rely on US financial institutions. I very much doubt destroying the trustworthiness of its financial institutions in order to protect war criominals is beneficial for the US in the long run.
- ExoticPearTree 10mo agoAfter WW2, the US did a lot of bad things but it did not change its status in the world. Nothing will change now or in the foreseeable future. And the “problem” is pretty simple: there is no one able to take its place.
- vidarh 10mo agoAfter WW2, the US had a lot of political capital and the governments with economic clout were largely either highly positive to the US or already quite hostile, and the US at the same time had a tremendous financial advantage. A lot of the US' bad things post WW2 were seen favorably by the governments that were already US-friendly, and who either way saw the US as a critical ally. That has drastically changed in general. The situation is not remotely comparable. Europe in particular is more confident, isn't bordered by a power that Europe believes it can't handle alone if it has to (a threat, yes, but not an existential one like the USSR). There isn't remotely the same sense of needing the US at all costs. The ICC decisions simply wouldn't have been allowed to happen in a way that caused a rift with the US shortly after WW2. It'd have been inconceivable. That the ICC decisions have not just been allowed to happen but haven't caused uproar from most European governments is itself evidence of how much weaker the US position is seen by European eyes in particular. But in terms of finance in particular, it's also just not the case that there is no one able to take its place. Of the top 20 largest banks in the world by assets, only 5 are American, the top 4 largest are Chinese, and China has 7 total, UK 2, France 2, Japan 3, Spain 1. Extend that list to the top 50, and it only adds one more US bank.
- sva_ 10mo ago> a handful of other countries do not recognize the ICC Those "handful of countries" who do not recognize the ICC have more than 2/3rd of the world population btw.