3 ms·

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. The US is acting to impose sanctions on individuals with no direct ties to it by using its legal authority ov

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. The US is acting to impose sanctions on individuals with no direct ties to it by using its legal authority over American entities. The reason the US wants to do this is because the ICC is seeking to impose its legal authority over individuals whose state has not joined the ICC with novel legal theories and using its legal authority over ICC states. If the ICC had remained in areas where its legal authority is clear and not disputed, its judges and prosecutors wouldn't be facing this issue.

piva00 9mo ago
So explain why the US used the same mechanisms against a Brazilian judge responsible for Bolsonaro's coup attempt case. Was Brazil's justice trying to impose its legal authority outside of its jurisdictions? Nope. Was it hurting humans rights? Nope. It's simply to bully, and meddle with entities that go against the interests of the current administration. I don't buy your justification why this case is not the same, at all.
- Lysander1 9mo ago
  I'm talking about the ICC. I'm not trying to explain that.
  - piva00 9mo ago
    I won't ignore the administration track record of using sanctions to further their own agenda though, not sure why you can do that to explain the ICC case when it's factual they use it against some people that don't toe their line, as a meddling weapon to strong-arm them.
Kim_Bruning 9mo ago
Can you be more specific? Which individuals and why (not)? Note that eg if you're from (picking two random countries) Nepal and commit a crime in Italy, then Italy still has jurisdiction. Italian police can arrest you. [1] Also, there's certain crimes that any country is allowed to arrest you for, for instance piracy on the high seas. [1] Also explicitly taken into account in the Rome statue 12(2)(a) https://legal.un.org/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm https://legal.un.org/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm
- Lysander1 9mo ago
  I'm talking about the sanctioned individuals on the ICC, judges and the prosecutor. The issue is not a matter of certain individuals going to a different country and allegedly committing a crime there. No one is talking about sea piracy.
MangoToupe 9mo ago
The only way the theory of international law holds any water is if countries are held to it regardless of the treaties they've signed. Any country that hasn't signed with the ICC is clearly a country run by criminals.
- Lysander1 9mo ago
  That's not how treaties work, and it's not how the ICC is supposed to work based on its explicit provisions.

piva00 9mo ago

So explain why the US used the same mechanisms against a Brazilian judge responsible for Bolsonaro's coup attempt case. Was Brazil's justice trying to impose its legal authority outside of its jurisdictions? Nope. Was it hurting humans rights? Nope. It's simply to bully, and meddle with entities that go against the interests of the current administration. I don't buy your justification why this case is not the same, at all.

Lysander1 9mo ago
I'm talking about the ICC. I'm not trying to explain that.
- piva00 9mo ago
  I won't ignore the administration track record of using sanctions to further their own agenda though, not sure why you can do that to explain the ICC case when it's factual they use it against some people that don't toe their line, as a meddling weapon to strong-arm them.

Kim_Bruning 9mo ago

Can you be more specific? Which individuals and why (not)? Note that eg if you're from (picking two random countries) Nepal and commit a crime in Italy, then Italy still has jurisdiction. Italian police can arrest you. [1] Also, there's certain crimes that any country is allowed to arrest you for, for instance piracy on the high seas. [1] Also explicitly taken into account in the Rome statue 12(2)(a) https://legal.un.org/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm https://legal.un.org/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm

Lysander1 9mo ago
I'm talking about the sanctioned individuals on the ICC, judges and the prosecutor. The issue is not a matter of certain individuals going to a different country and allegedly committing a crime there. No one is talking about sea piracy.

MangoToupe 9mo ago

The only way the theory of international law holds any water is if countries are held to it regardless of the treaties they've signed. Any country that hasn't signed with the ICC is clearly a country run by criminals.

Lysander1 9mo ago
That's not how treaties work, and it's not how the ICC is supposed to work based on its explicit provisions.