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. kccqzy · 1790695252 · focus · HN ↗

            No. I’m not saying all international treaties and bodies shouldn’t exist. That’s a wild misinterpretation of what I said. I said that international treaties that establish a supranational court system should not exist. The emphasis is on court system. Conflicts between countries on anything including crimes should ideally be dealt with using diplomatic means, not a court trial. That’s why the United Nations Security Council works. It’s not a court.

            1. artnanika · 1790696037 · focus · HN ↗

               That's an arbitrary statement to make ("I believe international treaties and bodies should exist, but make an exception for criminal courts"). I believe that criminal courts should matter even more than non-criminal courts such as the UNCLOS' court, mostly because even centuries ago, treaties related to war crimes have always been seen as a bigger priority for most empires and nations than other types of treaties have been. The ICC is our best way to enforce treaties like the Geneva Conventions.

               The ICC is overwhelmingly popular with most countries and people, most people who oppose it are those from countries which harbor war criminals and try to make their opposition look like it stems from legal issues with international jurisdiction, and not the truth which is to protect their country's ability to commit war crimes unabated.

               1. andsoitis · 1790725000 · focus · HN ↗

                  > The ICC is overwhelmingly popular with most countries and people, most people who oppose it are those from countries which harbor war criminals

                  We don’t have good enough contemporary global polling to confidently say that a majority personally supports the ICC.

                  However, I suspect you’re right that most people probably support the idea of the ICC but countries choose not to be part for a variety of reasons, other that “harboring war criminals”.

                  The following countries are not party to the Rome Statute, which is what established the ICC:

                  United States, China, Russia, India, Israel, Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.