RU version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
52% Positive
Analyzed from 1979 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#icc#international#war#court#world#crimes#powerful#countries#state#doing
Discussion (56 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
So why is the US doing this with such intensity right now?
( My question was rhetorical, you can see in the initial ICC sanctions from the Whitehouse it was all about Israel + Netanyahu: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/impo... )
This administration attacks any body or authority that has the power to hold them accountable. See: attacks on the judiciary, attacks on the media, attacks on academia, etc.
You can not blame all of the worlds ills on Russia, seemingly the most powerful and least capable nation at the same time.
Oh no! An international body is taking action against some of the worst criminals on the planet? I'm glad the U.S. is taking actions to prevent those people from doing their job. America is doing great!
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.
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.
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.
The thought process went something like if we give the world more of a say that would help push us towards a world with more human rights and freedoms (and fairness and equity). But the actual result has been less human rights and freedoms. This experiment has been a failure and the world is a worst place. Maybe correlation isn't causation but at this point in time free democracies should not be giving up their sovereignty to world organizations.
Over the last two decades: https://ourworldindata.org/democracy
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.
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.
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.
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.
Especially as ultimately the only way to actually enforce any law is with violence (without which a court is impotent and its laws meaningless).
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.
>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.
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.)
Research, investments and talents are all avoiding the US. AI won't save the US economy either as there is no moat as we can all see.
I don't have to think either isn't "abusing its power to force deals".
Unfortunately, that's not how humans work.
> the one abusing its power to force deals since the 80s us obviously the worst.
Agreed. China's behavior towards its own people, its neighbors - Tibet, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and India - and the international community as a whole since Dengism took hold have been inexcusable, no matter how much cheap manufacturing they're able to pull off.
They've blatantly enabled the totalitarian DPRK in its quest to defy UN sanctions over its nuclear program, and have violated the sovereignty of their neighbors in the South China Sea. Now they're undercutting manufacturing around the world by producing goods without the consideration of environmental concerns that places like the EU and US try to take into account with their own industrial development. PLA hackers have attacked numerous international targets. PRC agents have worked to abduct Chinese citizens exercising their basic human rights to free thought abroad through a system of secret police stations.
All of this since they ran over protestors with main battle tanks in 1989.
What's truly frightening is that the powerful in the rest of the world seem to want to emulate this sort of behavior, particularly totalitarian control of their own populations.
Interesting times indeed. The foreign affairs secretary of the most corrupt US administration cries foul of the ICC.
> Despite its significant global representation, dozens of governments are not parties to the ICC, including China, India, Israel, Russia, and the United States
What a great club to be in, ripe with war crimes and human rights abuses.
The move is the Trump administration's latest escalation in its campaign to "dismantle" the court which is empowered by more than 120 member countries to investigate war crimes."
The Trump administration is saying the quiet part out loud: they are pro war crimes.
Hegseth tells his “warfighters” that they must ignore the Geneva convention. The president goes on social media and threatens the destruction of civilian populations (“an entire civilization will die tonight”) as well as civilian infrastructure (bridges, power plants).
Giving your own personnel or enemy personnel the impression you are pursuing a policy of no quarter is itself a war crime.
"This court is for Africa and thugs like Putin. It is not for democracies like Israel and the United States of America."