4 ms·
There’s a fundamental flaw in the concept of “international justice”. On a nation level the power of a court to prosecute individuals is supported by a policin
by soldthat 10mo ago
There’s a fundamental flaw in the concept of “international justice”.
On a nation level the power of a court to prosecute individuals is supported by a policing force that is capable of resorting to violence on a local level that is acceptable for the greater peace.
On an international level, enforcing justice would ultimately require going to war, with mass casualties and likely numerous incidents of potential breaches of the law itself.
In the example of Israel vs Hamas, the ICC warrant included the leaders of Hamas - but the ICC had zero chance of actually arresting them, they were killed by Israel though. So half of the defendants carried out the justice sought by the ICC on the other half.
- saubeidl 10mo agoThis only applies if the individuals are a) protected by their country of residence and b) never leave it. Neither of those are certain and even for people that a) applies to, b) can be a big hassle. Just ask Netanyahu.
- soldthat 10mo agoIf the country itself has a justice system that can prosecute the individual, the ICC has no jurisdiction. In the case of Israel the ICC used a loophole to work around this, since the Israeli courts are actually able to prosecute Netanyahu (and are currently doing so on other matters).
- saubeidl 10mo agoWhether Israeli courts are able and willing to prosecute Israeli war crimes is... up for debate.
- soldthat 10mo agoRegardless, the international law is that they are supposed to be given a chance to do so, which they weren’t.
- potatototoo99 10mo agoIsrael did not and doesn't appear to be planning to prosecute Netanyahu for crimes against humanity, just for corruption.
- amanaplanacanal 10mo agoHow long should they wait, do you think, so that they are given a fair chance?
- saubeidl 10mo agoIt's been over a year now, with no prosecution having started on the Isreali side. Don't you think that counts as a chance that wasn't taken?
- bawolff 10mo agoIsrael was given notice of an investigation being opened as was required when the investigation was first opened many years ago. So far, Israel has not provided any sort of proof that they have initiated a serious independent criminal investigation into the alleged misconduct. If they did, i suspect the warrant would go away.
- soldthat 10mo agoFind me another case of “justice” where the prosecution started before the crimes being prosecuted were allegedly committed.
- bawolff 10mo agoThe prosecution hasn't even started yet. The prosecution doesn't start until the alleged perpretators are either captured or turn themselves in (neither of which is likely to happen). Neither an investigation nor a warrant is the same thing as a trial. No evidence has been publicly presented yet, nobody has been found guilty. Almost no other justice systems require notice that a mere investigation has been opened. So to answer your question, basically all of them.
- MPSFounder 10mo ago[flagged]
- tptacek 10mo agoWhatever influence Israel may or may not have over US policy, attribution of that power to a "Jewish diaspora" is straightforwardly antisemitic.
- MPSFounder 10mo ago[flagged]
- soldthat 10mo agoIt’s 2025, all the ancient tropes are back in fashion. Openly on most other platforms, thinly veiled on HN.
- sdeframond 10mo ago> So half of the defendants carried out the justice sought by the ICC on the other half. ...without trial. And assuming guilty and sentenced to death.
- soldthat 10mo agoTrial by which court? This is standard rules of war. Soldiers don’t have to convene a court before shooting at enemy combatants.
- mrexcess 10mo ago[flagged]
- xvector 10mo ago> So was most of what was done on October 7th by Hamas... Yeah, I don't think mass executing partygoers at a music festival has anything to do with "the standard rules of war." Israel's response was obviously disproportionate but certainly fell within the standard conventions of warfare (e.g. executing enemy commanders being housed/protected by the populace is fairly standard.)
- mrexcess 10mo ago[dead]
- prmoustache 10mo agoUsing "partygoers" without mentionning such party happened on lands stolen with violence is a bit dishonest. Hamas is an indirect creation of Israel, they wouldn't exist if not for decade of violence and humiliation from Israel. In the same vein, the Likoud exist because of the PFLP and maintain its power thanks to the presence of Hamas. Both the extreme right in Israel and the Islamist movements in Palestine feed themselves and survive thanks to hatred and have no reason nor any wish to make this conflict stop. Netanyahu and his minions were probably laughing at the sights of the victims of october 7 knowing this would only help them.enforce their politics.
- arlort 10mo agoThere's no such flaw in most cases brought to the ICC The ICC is an international court but it administers trials (mostly) local to the members' jurisdiction so this point is moot. A warrant from the ICC doesn't ask the member states to go to war and hunt the target, it asks them to arrest them if the target is within their jurisdiction The fact that the ICC warrant was unlikely to lead to Hamas' leaders arrest in the short term is not particularly meaningful The "mostly" qualifier is because IIRC there are some provisions for truly extraterritorial prosecutions in the Rome treaty but I don't know that they've ever been actually used
- soldthat 10mo ago“Justice” without enforcement is meaningless. They have a warrant out for Putin, has that made any impact on the war in Ukraine?
- arlort 10mo ago> has that made any impact on the war in Ukraine The objective of the ICC is not to stop wars The objective of the ICC is to provide a framework to enable prosecuting and punishing the people ordering particularly egregious acts in a way that is more consistent with liberal rule of law principles than post-hoc tribunals like after WW2 and that is more accessible to fragile / new countries due to having the legal infrastructure set up and at least partially legitimized by it being an international body The fact that Putin (for example) might at some point get extradited / captured, prosecuted and jailed for whatever crimes he gets found guilty of is a moral good in and of itself If this being done at the ICC rather than in an Ukrainian or Russian (in an hypothetical regime after Putin's) helps others accept the verdict as more based on fact than politics then that's why the ICC exists as an entity If this makes someone down the line think twice about ordering war crimes then that's an added benefit but it's not the point
- potatototoo99 10mo agoIf for example Putin was overthrown and had to flee Russia, and happens to fly over an ICC signatory, he could rightfully be arrested and brought to justice. What is the alternative? CIA assassinations and kangaroo courts?
- megous 10mo ago[flagged]
- flowerthoughts 10mo agoThe national policing forces don't report to the courts. Instead, there are promises between the two. The argument that international courts cannot work because they don't have their own enforcement is weak. But you are right it would be equivalent to war, or "special military operations" such as Bin Ladin, if a ruling party is convicted.