Thread

1. msdz · 1790961668 · focus · HN ↗

   Regardless of what one personally thinks about the ICC, this isn’t a good look for neither the US nor Europe.

   For the U.S., because sanctioning an “unpleasant”, but in essence harmless individual (geopolitically speaking) is ridiculous. Falling victim to de-banking alone can really ruin one’s life.

   And for the EU, because it once again showcases the dependence on U.S. systems for just about anything tech-related in everyday life and work.

   1. nostrademons · 1790963177 · focus · HN ↗

      It undermines the idea of the U.S. as a neutral arbiter for law, order, and free commerce. That may always have been a fiction, but it's a very useful fiction because it underpins U.S. soft power. It's much easier to get consent for being the world hegemon when you act like a benevolent, disinterested hegemon. Once you start becoming a participant - and overriding other institutions that are ostensibly providing neutral, impartial justice just because their decisions are inconvenient for you - you are essentially placing yourself below them and undermining your own legitimacy.

      Neutrality and objectivity may be a fiction, but it's one of the most useful fictions that have been invented in the last 500 years.

      1. nazgulsenpai · 1790965076 · focus · HN ↗

         As an American, I don't think anyone informed has ever perceived the US as neutral, at least not since the 20th century. We have veto power with control of the US dollar, the ability of the US military to engage in any part of the world (historically, much less so in current year), and being a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

         In my opinion, the sanctioning of these judges simply comes across as a petty tantrum of a nation in decline, using the remaining tools it has at it's disposal to try to get its way.

         edit: typo

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.