4 ms·

https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1d097g2/which_countries_accept_the_international_criminal/#lightbox https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1d097g2/

https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1d097g2/which_countries_accept_the_international_criminal/#lightbox https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1d097g2/which_coun... The US withdrew its signature all the way back in 2002, the same year the ICC came into being. It's only "their job" where they have jurisdiction. This is like Ofcom trying to require overseas companies/providers to enforce the Online Safety Act. The ICC doesn't even automatically have jurisdiction of signatory nations either -- it's only when that nation fails to actively pursue prosecutions in their own courts.

bigcat12345678 2mo ago
Since when US requires "jurisdiction" for it's actions?
- busterarm 2mo ago
  Nice whataboutism. All UN member states are de facto part of the ICJ. If you have a valid claim against a nation, the proper place to pursue that is the ICJ. Hate what the US and Israel are doing or not, what the ICC is doing here is entirely political posturing and theater.
  - estearum 2mo ago
    Think the ICC is engaged in political posturing and theater all you want, sanctions are not an appropriate tool
    - busterarm 2mo ago
      They aren't? The US government has authority over its borders and assets within them. This is an action that is perfectly legal and enabled by acts of Congress. It actually has real teeth. I don't necessarily agree with it either but what do you expect to happen in response to the ICC's action. The ICC is trying to set a precedent that the US views as against its interests. Go ahead and poke the bear.
      - estearum 2mo ago
        The question isn't whether the US government has power to sanction people, it's whether the Executive has the authority to use that power for this purpose against these entities. "The bear" (rah rah, bro) is governed by laws. These sanctions are allegedly authorized under e.g. IEEPA and the National Emergencies Act. What's the emergency? Assume that's valid, then what powers are made available to the President in response to that emergency? It's absolutely not clear at all that this action is "perfectly legal and enabled by acts of Congress." This admin's last broad interpretation of IEEPA-originating powers was already struck down by SCOTUS.
        SpicyLemonZest 2mo ago
        This admin's last broad interpretation involved doing things that had never before been done under IEEPA. Prohibiting Americans from doing business with designated people based on executive fiat has been an extremely common use of IEEPA for decades, and multiple such long-standing emergencies have nothing to do with a concrete threat to the United States. The status quo is very dumb, don't get me wrong, but I don't think there's a lack of clarity about what it is.
        estearum 2mo ago
        It's really not that clear. For example there are specific procedural requirements, enforcement cannot be capricious or arbitrary, they can't be vague, etc etc
        SpicyLemonZest 2mo ago
        The Secretary of State imposed well-understood restrictions on two well-identified people, so there's no vagueness. The underlying executive order authorizing these sanctions was based on specific concerns about the actions of the ICC, including specific arrest warrants against government officials of a country the president believes is a close American ally. So it's not arbitrary and capricious. Again, I emphasize that whether US law authorizes doing this does not at all answer the question of whether it's a good idea. In a healthy country, Trump would be impeached on the spot for trying to pick this fight, because even people who don't like the ICC would fear discrediting their ideology. But there's no question under US law that these sanctions are valid.
Kim_Bruning 2mo ago
ICC has jurisdiction in the signatory countries themselves.
atoav 2mo ago
Well many of the countries where the war crimes happened are signatories to the ICC, so that isn't gonna be the problem you think it is. Also: the US acting as a rouge state is not a power move it is a sign of moral decay, corruption and a critical failure to uphold the principles laid out in its own (wonderfully written!) Declaration of Independence. It is just sad to see how hollowed out these great ideals have become.
- lovich 2mo ago
  Prefacing that I disagree heavily with the US actions under this admin and a lot with previous admins. These ideals were always hollow. There is no law between sovereign entities, only martial might and political game theory tactics. It’s why the EU struggles so heavily with tighter integration. None of those sovereign states who are members want to give up the ability to do what they want and be subordinate to another power.
boomskats 2mo ago
> The US withdrew its signature all the way back in 2002. Yeah, I guess international law was rather incompatible with their ambitions at the time. Fair play to them though, they certainly made the most of it.
- YZF 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - boomskats 2mo ago
    I'm really sorry but I've read this comment 3 times now and I still can't make sense of it
    - solid_fuel 2mo ago
      They're just mad that the ICC has called out Israel for their war crimes, and they're trying to twist logic in a way that makes that stance less reprehensible. It's motivated reasoning.
      - dang 1mo ago
        Offtopic, but can you please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49364695 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49364695? It's important and I don't want you to miss it.
muvlon 2mo ago
ICC and ICJ have different roles. The ICJ's subjects are countries whereas the ICC deals with individuals. In this case, the ICC has jurisdiction because the alleged crimes were committed in the territory of a signatory (Palestine) and because Palestine indeed found itself unable to prosecute them.
- YZF 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - throw310822 2mo ago
    > It has no official borders. Neither does Israel, btw.
    - bulbar 1mo ago
      Pretty sure Israel maintains a stable and official border. Just try to enter by car, you will realize there's a border.
      - ASalazarMX 1mo ago
        I think they meant Israel keeps changing their borders by taking other countries' territories by force.
        throw310822 1mo ago
        No I meant exactly what I wrote, that Israel does not have official borders. In the example of the comment you replied to, if you try to cross any number of unofficial, illegal, and moveable borders in the vicinity of Israel, Israel might or might not shoot you, depending on who you are, who they think you are, and the mood of the day. Why? Because if they said what their border are, they would be already implicitly renouncing to anything outside them, or at least recognising that they don't have a right to it. Why set limits to your ambition?

bigcat12345678 2mo ago

Since when US requires "jurisdiction" for it's actions?

busterarm 2mo ago
Nice whataboutism. All UN member states are de facto part of the ICJ. If you have a valid claim against a nation, the proper place to pursue that is the ICJ. Hate what the US and Israel are doing or not, what the ICC is doing here is entirely political posturing and theater.
- estearum 2mo ago
  Think the ICC is engaged in political posturing and theater all you want, sanctions are not an appropriate tool
  - busterarm 2mo ago
    They aren't? The US government has authority over its borders and assets within them. This is an action that is perfectly legal and enabled by acts of Congress. It actually has real teeth. I don't necessarily agree with it either but what do you expect to happen in response to the ICC's action. The ICC is trying to set a precedent that the US views as against its interests. Go ahead and poke the bear.
    - estearum 2mo ago
      The question isn't whether the US government has power to sanction people, it's whether the Executive has the authority to use that power for this purpose against these entities. "The bear" (rah rah, bro) is governed by laws. These sanctions are allegedly authorized under e.g. IEEPA and the National Emergencies Act. What's the emergency? Assume that's valid, then what powers are made available to the President in response to that emergency? It's absolutely not clear at all that this action is "perfectly legal and enabled by acts of Congress." This admin's last broad interpretation of IEEPA-originating powers was already struck down by SCOTUS.
      - SpicyLemonZest 2mo ago
        This admin's last broad interpretation involved doing things that had never before been done under IEEPA. Prohibiting Americans from doing business with designated people based on executive fiat has been an extremely common use of IEEPA for decades, and multiple such long-standing emergencies have nothing to do with a concrete threat to the United States. The status quo is very dumb, don't get me wrong, but I don't think there's a lack of clarity about what it is.
        estearum 2mo ago
        It's really not that clear. For example there are specific procedural requirements, enforcement cannot be capricious or arbitrary, they can't be vague, etc etc
        SpicyLemonZest 2mo ago
        The Secretary of State imposed well-understood restrictions on two well-identified people, so there's no vagueness. The underlying executive order authorizing these sanctions was based on specific concerns about the actions of the ICC, including specific arrest warrants against government officials of a country the president believes is a close American ally. So it's not arbitrary and capricious. Again, I emphasize that whether US law authorizes doing this does not at all answer the question of whether it's a good idea. In a healthy country, Trump would be impeached on the spot for trying to pick this fight, because even people who don't like the ICC would fear discrediting their ideology. But there's no question under US law that these sanctions are valid.

Kim_Bruning 2mo ago

ICC has jurisdiction in the signatory countries themselves.

atoav 2mo ago

Well many of the countries where the war crimes happened are signatories to the ICC, so that isn't gonna be the problem you think it is. Also: the US acting as a rouge state is not a power move it is a sign of moral decay, corruption and a critical failure to uphold the principles laid out in its own (wonderfully written!) Declaration of Independence. It is just sad to see how hollowed out these great ideals have become.

lovich 2mo ago
Prefacing that I disagree heavily with the US actions under this admin and a lot with previous admins. These ideals were always hollow. There is no law between sovereign entities, only martial might and political game theory tactics. It’s why the EU struggles so heavily with tighter integration. None of those sovereign states who are members want to give up the ability to do what they want and be subordinate to another power.

boomskats 2mo ago

> The US withdrew its signature all the way back in 2002. Yeah, I guess international law was rather incompatible with their ambitions at the time. Fair play to them though, they certainly made the most of it.

YZF 2mo ago
[flagged]
- boomskats 2mo ago
  I'm really sorry but I've read this comment 3 times now and I still can't make sense of it
  - solid_fuel 2mo ago
    They're just mad that the ICC has called out Israel for their war crimes, and they're trying to twist logic in a way that makes that stance less reprehensible. It's motivated reasoning.
    - dang 1mo ago
      Offtopic, but can you please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49364695 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49364695? It's important and I don't want you to miss it.

muvlon 2mo ago

ICC and ICJ have different roles. The ICJ's subjects are countries whereas the ICC deals with individuals. In this case, the ICC has jurisdiction because the alleged crimes were committed in the territory of a signatory (Palestine) and because Palestine indeed found itself unable to prosecute them.

YZF 2mo ago
[flagged]
- throw310822 2mo ago
  > It has no official borders. Neither does Israel, btw.
  - bulbar 1mo ago
    Pretty sure Israel maintains a stable and official border. Just try to enter by car, you will realize there's a border.
    - ASalazarMX 1mo ago
      I think they meant Israel keeps changing their borders by taking other countries' territories by force.
      - throw310822 1mo ago
        No I meant exactly what I wrote, that Israel does not have official borders. In the example of the comment you replied to, if you try to cross any number of unofficial, illegal, and moveable borders in the vicinity of Israel, Israel might or might not shoot you, depending on who you are, who they think you are, and the mood of the day. Why? Because if they said what their border are, they would be already implicitly renouncing to anything outside them, or at least recognising that they don't have a right to it. Why set limits to your ambition?