3 ms·

The relationship between the ICC and the "great powers" is an interesting one. It sort of separates the normal alliances of "west" and "non-west" alliances, and

by scoofy 2mo ago

The relationship between the ICC and the "great powers" is an interesting one. It sort of separates the normal alliances of "west" and "non-west" alliances, and reshapes them into powerful and non-powerful. And it seems this conflict is ongoing. Apart from Europe, the number large, powerful non-signatory countries is pretty significant: US, China, India, Russia, Iran, Saudi, Egypt, Turkey, Indonesia, and more. I've always thought it is interesting that the concept of international law is by definition in conflict with the de facto anarchy of international relations. I've always had mixed opinions on the topic, simply because you can look at an institution like the UN, and see that it functions much more successfully as a simple forum than a deliberative body. The idea that somehow we are going to implement something as difficult as a criminal court on an international basis seems... very idealistic. A court like this always seems sensible at first glance, but I'm not sure it can really exist effectively at all over any serious time horizon.

Barrin92 2mo ago
>interesting that the concept of international law is by definition in conflict of the anarchy of real Realpolitik not 'by definition'. There's a fairly good case to be made that playing by, and being able to set, international norms is in the long term interest of powerful countries. For one because you don't know when you'll cease to be powerful, which will happen given enough time and secondly because even smaller players can cause significant damage when acting without constraint, a lesson several great powers are currently learning for the umpteenth time. It's very meathead schoolyard bully coded to think that anarchy benefits you just because you happen to be the biggest dude around. It speaks more to the intellect of current leaders than it does to some fundamental contradiction.
- scoofy 2mo ago
  I've updated the language there a bit, but the meaning is the same. >There's a fairly good case to be made that playing by, and being able to set, international norms is in the long term benefit of powerful countries. Yes, but it doesn't matter. The entire concept of truly sovereign states existing is the point. The second a state wants to leave the agreement, they just stop cooperating. There is no "greater sovereign" with which you can enforce these rules, and if there is -- say, a bigger country invading a smaller country to enforce the rules -- you're once again in a state of war, and none of the rules mattered in the first place.
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
  - jacobgorm 2mo ago
    You can always hide in your own country, as long as you or the people who protect you are able to stay in power, but at least you cannot use the rest of the world as playground or shopping center. Sucks to be a rich kleptocrat and not be able to have a yacht in Nice or be able to take your wife shopping in London.
- throw-the-towel 2mo ago
  > playing by [...] international norms is in the long term interest of powerful countries. Ah, but are the interests of their leaders aligned with the interests of the countries? (Side note: it's so charmingly cute we now [pretend to?] care about AI alignment, when the much simpler problem of politician alignment remains unsolved.)
- lenerdenator 2mo ago
  > There's a fairly good case to be made that playing by, and being able to set, international norms is in the long term interest of powerful countries. There's also a fairly good case to be made that not playing by international norms is in the long term interest of powerful (and not powerful) countries. For example, China didn't get to be the likely second superpower by respecting intellectual property rights, South China Sea territorial claims, human rights, intellectual pluralism, environmental protections, or any of the other things that the post-Cold War international order considered important, especially prior to 9/11. The only thing that ultimately matters is if you make the right people the right amount of money at the right time. China does this through cheap labor and by setting up supply chains that the rest of the world either can't or won't, particularly with regard to workers' rights and environmental concerns.
  - Barrin92 2mo ago
    high wages, intellectual pluralism or trade disputes aren't part of the bedrock of international norms. China actually did spend a huge amount of energy to join the international institutions like the WTO. Whether they maximize their leeway within them is another story but they've consistently pushed for an international approach and expanded their influence within international institutions, not outside of them. That's why they're so well networked now. And that's also btw the reason the US is throwing a big old fit in the first place, they feel like they've lost their influence largely to China and other emerging economies. Even though China may not meet your standards for what a liberal society looks like, China has not gone rogue, quite the opposite.
    - lenerdenator 2mo ago
      > high wages, intellectual pluralism or trade disputes aren't part of the bedrock of international norms. Well, the idea, particularly before 9/11, is that they could be. You'd have increased manufacturing in developing countries lifting up their peoples out of poverty. You'd have democratic republicanism in more places so that people would have a say in their government. Trade disputes would be handled by international bodies like the WTO. Otherwise, you have the norms being the opposite, and what we're regressing to. You have a powerful elite that wants to rent-seek off the rest of the population, install totalitarian regimes to secure their place at the top, and form international blocs that resolve resource and economic disputes in more belligerent ways to both secure and expand their area of totalitarian, rent-seeking control.
throw79525 2mo ago
The concept of international law outside of its jurisdiction is just a rebranded form of imperialism. How’s it different to a US Federal court deciding it has jurisdiction in Canada? Especially as ultimately the only way to actually enforce any law is with violence (without which a court is impotent and its laws meaningless).

by scoofy 2mo ago

Barrin92 2mo ago

>interesting that the concept of international law is by definition in conflict of the anarchy of real Realpolitik not 'by definition'. There's a fairly good case to be made that playing by, and being able to set, international norms is in the long term interest of powerful countries. For one because you don't know when you'll cease to be powerful, which will happen given enough time and secondly because even smaller players can cause significant damage when acting without constraint, a lesson several great powers are currently learning for the umpteenth time. It's very meathead schoolyard bully coded to think that anarchy benefits you just because you happen to be the biggest dude around. It speaks more to the intellect of current leaders than it does to some fundamental contradiction.

scoofy 2mo ago
I've updated the language there a bit, but the meaning is the same. >There's a fairly good case to be made that playing by, and being able to set, international norms is in the long term benefit of powerful countries. Yes, but it doesn't matter. The entire concept of truly sovereign states existing is the point. The second a state wants to leave the agreement, they just stop cooperating. There is no "greater sovereign" with which you can enforce these rules, and if there is -- say, a bigger country invading a smaller country to enforce the rules -- you're once again in a state of war, and none of the rules mattered in the first place.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
- jacobgorm 2mo ago
  You can always hide in your own country, as long as you or the people who protect you are able to stay in power, but at least you cannot use the rest of the world as playground or shopping center. Sucks to be a rich kleptocrat and not be able to have a yacht in Nice or be able to take your wife shopping in London.
throw-the-towel 2mo ago
> playing by [...] international norms is in the long term interest of powerful countries. Ah, but are the interests of their leaders aligned with the interests of the countries? (Side note: it's so charmingly cute we now [pretend to?] care about AI alignment, when the much simpler problem of politician alignment remains unsolved.)
lenerdenator 2mo ago
> There's a fairly good case to be made that playing by, and being able to set, international norms is in the long term interest of powerful countries. There's also a fairly good case to be made that not playing by international norms is in the long term interest of powerful (and not powerful) countries. For example, China didn't get to be the likely second superpower by respecting intellectual property rights, South China Sea territorial claims, human rights, intellectual pluralism, environmental protections, or any of the other things that the post-Cold War international order considered important, especially prior to 9/11. The only thing that ultimately matters is if you make the right people the right amount of money at the right time. China does this through cheap labor and by setting up supply chains that the rest of the world either can't or won't, particularly with regard to workers' rights and environmental concerns.
- Barrin92 2mo ago
  high wages, intellectual pluralism or trade disputes aren't part of the bedrock of international norms. China actually did spend a huge amount of energy to join the international institutions like the WTO. Whether they maximize their leeway within them is another story but they've consistently pushed for an international approach and expanded their influence within international institutions, not outside of them. That's why they're so well networked now. And that's also btw the reason the US is throwing a big old fit in the first place, they feel like they've lost their influence largely to China and other emerging economies. Even though China may not meet your standards for what a liberal society looks like, China has not gone rogue, quite the opposite.
  - lenerdenator 2mo ago
    > high wages, intellectual pluralism or trade disputes aren't part of the bedrock of international norms. Well, the idea, particularly before 9/11, is that they could be. You'd have increased manufacturing in developing countries lifting up their peoples out of poverty. You'd have democratic republicanism in more places so that people would have a say in their government. Trade disputes would be handled by international bodies like the WTO. Otherwise, you have the norms being the opposite, and what we're regressing to. You have a powerful elite that wants to rent-seek off the rest of the population, install totalitarian regimes to secure their place at the top, and form international blocs that resolve resource and economic disputes in more belligerent ways to both secure and expand their area of totalitarian, rent-seeking control.

throw79525 2mo ago

The concept of international law outside of its jurisdiction is just a rebranded form of imperialism. How’s it different to a US Federal court deciding it has jurisdiction in Canada? Especially as ultimately the only way to actually enforce any law is with violence (without which a court is impotent and its laws meaningless).