4 ms·
I don't understand your point. The US is arguing that treaties that have been agreed to between HK and US should be honored because they are "the law" between t
by joonix 13y ago
I don't understand your point. The US is arguing that treaties that have been agreed to between HK and US should be honored because they are "the law" between those two countries. The US has not signed the ICC treaty, as you stated, so that is not "the law" binding the US. You have no point here unless the US had signed the treaty but failed to respect its terms.
- pfortuny 13y agoYou are right, I just wanted to emphasize the single-sidedness of the US whenever it suits them and the 'oh-people-you-have-to-abide-by-the-law' when not. The ICC was one of the BIG things as far as 'International Law' goes. The US did not enter because 'we do not want our military to be judged by foreigners' (in G.W. Bush's words), just as they did with the Germans after WWII. You are right, my point is just tangential. But there it goes.