Thread

1. guidoiaquinti · 1790685221 · focus · HN ↗

   Several International Criminal Court (ICC) judges have been unable to access their bank accounts or receive routine salary payments and financial transfers due to financial blockages triggered by United States sanctions. In the country where they live

   1. kccqzy · 1790691661 · focus · HN ↗

      The United States has never recognized the jurisprudence of ICC anyways. So to the United States these judges are just regular foreigners making decisions they don’t like. Sanctions are an appropriate tool for the United States to meddle in foreign affairs anyways. For countries that support ICC, avoiding United States is also appropriate.

      Personally I don’t really have much faith in the ICC; its premise is flawed since great powers will never be deferential to a foreign court system anyways.

      1. artnanika · 1790694337 · focus · HN ↗

         No, your premise is flawed. According to your logic, all international treaties and bodies shouldn't exist either because great powers can ignore them at will just like how they ignore the ICC. The US for instance can ignore the Geneva Conventions willy-nilly and not be punished for it since to the US government, its own laws (which allow for war crimes) will always supersede foreign treaties, does that mean the Geneva Conventions shouldn't exist?

         The ICC is a step in the right direction in the post-WW2 world, a shame though that repressive countries filled to the brim with war criminals cannot help but see it as an affront and such a threat to them.

         1. ambicapter · 1790694950 · focus · HN ↗

            > a shame though that repressive countries filled to the brim with war criminals cannot help but see it as an affront and such a threat to them.

            I mean, they're right. International rules-based order is a threat to war criminals. The real shame is certain countries having the power to enforce rules-based order and not doing so (or failing to do so).

            1. artnanika · 1790695419 · focus · HN ↗

               Most countries around the world have no problem extraditing their own criminals for crimes committed elsewhere (including the US), but it seems like countries like the United States and Russia fear that extraditing their war criminals would set a precedent that could cause their entire governments to collapse.

               Is it the people that make up the system, or the system that makes the people? In a country with rule of law, any individual in the government should be extraditable (for valid reasons) without it being a threat to the overall system.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.