Thread

ICC judge on what U.S. sanctions mean for her and global courts

229 points · 173 comments · rbanffy

Drupon · 1790963703 · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
1. anon291 · 1790964036 · focus · HN ↗
  Europeans have a superiority complex in believing their law is 'international'. It's not. American law rests on a joint agreement among the governed. The American people have never agreed to be governed by a foreign court.
  1. tgv · 1790964384 · focus · HN ↗
    > Europeans have a superiority complex in believing their law is 'international'.
    Do you even know what the ICC is based on?
    > American law rests on a joint agreement among the governed.
    No, it doesn't.
    > The American people have never agreed to be governed by a foreign court.
    That's the first true statement in your reply, and it means they can simply ignore the court. It doesn't mean targeting the employees of the court. That's just the US govt. being thugs.
    fusslo · 1790966207 · focus · HN ↗
    > > American law rests on a joint agreement among the governed.
    > No, it doesn't.
    why do you say that?
    laimewhisps · 1790967151 · focus · HN ↗
    As an American, I never agreed to anything. Not our laws, not our system of government, not our borders or wars... I mentioned it in another comment but we live under a defacto monopoly of violence held by the state.
    MentalM · 1790966526 · focus · HN ↗
    > It doesn't mean targeting the employees of the court.
    Generally it is mean exactly that.
    The judicial system is a branch of governmental authority. Any government on the planet Earth sees the establishment of unauthorize parallel branches of authority as one of the most serious crimes, and people who belong to such bodies face extremely harsh penalties up to physical elimination by the military force.
    anigbrowl · 1790968418 · focus · HN ↗
    You talk as if the ICC had just appeared and asserted its authority out of nowhere and then started kidnapping people to charge them.
    In reality, it was established by treaty, and 125 countries have chosen to vest authority in it. Originally that list included Israel, the US, and Russia, who supported the establishment of the court but subsequently withdrew when they perceived that being member states would constrain their strategic ambitions.
    <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute#/media/" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute#/media/
    anon291 · 1791006766 · focus · HN ↗
    That is totally fine that those countries agreed to it. The United States did not though. So any foreign court that attempts to prosecute Americans for how Americans act on American soil or in American jurisdiction (for example, by attempting to indict Americans carrying out the legal business of the United States), is a violation of American sovereignty.
    tgv · 1791053648 · focus · HN ↗
    Nobody disputes that. But e.g. war crimes are not legal in the US. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Crimes_Act_of_1996" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Crimes_Act_of_1996. So if the ICC persecutes war criminals, as it does, they're not stepping on the US' authority.
    Also, the jurisdiction of the US does not extend beyond its territory, except in case of war.
    anigbrowl · 1791063553 · focus · HN ↗
    Originally that list included Israel, the US, and Russia, who supported the establishment of the court but subsequently withdrew when they perceived that being member states would constrain their strategic ambitions.
    reality is more complciated than the simplistic characterization: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Internat...
    It's very clear that there's a tension between soveriegnty and accountability at work here, with the US seeking to both have its cake and eat it. Many of the objections to the Treaty of Rome stated by US commentators are equally applicable to the Nuremberg tribunals post WW2, for example.
    anon291 · 1790982806 · focus · HN ↗
    > That's the first true statement in your reply, and it means they can simply ignore the court. It doesn't mean targeting the employees of the court. That's just the US govt. being thugs.
    They are foreigners pretending to usurp the rightful authority of the United States government. If they were americans, they would be guilty of the felony of treason.
    tgv · 1791009706 · focus · HN ↗
    That would be true if (and only if) they would judge cases restricted to the USA's territory. If a US citizen commits a crime elsewhere, it is outside "the rightful authority of the United States government".

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.