4 ms·
Let’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;
by _aavaa_ 10mo ago
Let’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.
- throwaway3060 10mo agoWhen has the US used the argument that a judicial system has universal jurisdiction? In the US, foreign policy is the domain of the executive, to the point where court cases involving foreign sovereigns are usually dismissed. Compared to how much of a mess most of the world's powers are on matters on sovereignty, the US is actually one of the more conservative ones here (e.g., see OFCOM in the UK).
- eschaton 10mo agoIt has not, and that’s not what I said. Let me restate: The US position is that the US justice system “works” and thus *US persons and institutions* must be pursued *within the US system* even by foreign entities. In other words, the US position is not that if (say) North Korea commits a crime against humanity they must be pursued in US courts; the US is fine with the ICC in that case. The US position is that if the US commits a crime against humanity that must be pursued in US courts, not the ICC. It’s an obvious (and bullshit) double standard, but it’s also not a denial of the legitimacy of universal jurisdiction. It’s just the US, as usual, trying to have its cake and eat it too.
- throwaway3060 10mo agoWhy is that a double standard? The US position is that recognized nations have sovereignty, and are the supreme law within their jurisdiction. If there is no recognized legitimate sovereign power, then the US is fine with an international body substituting. That this standard is complicated, and different from those that argue that international law should be the supreme law, doesn't make it a double standard. It's also not what is meant by universal jurisdiction, as it does not depend on overriding sovereignty. Edit: Seeing your other comment, it's also worth noting this was a large reason why the US didn't sign the Rome statute, since as you note, the US isn't inherently opposed to the idea of international courts, only the supremacy of their jurisdiction.
- 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.