‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

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

229 points · 173 comments · rbanffy

  1. msdz · · 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. wereHamster · · focus · HN ↗
      EU is not necessarily dependent on the US in all the cases that are listed in the article. Take AXA, the insurance company. They could probably survive doing business just in the EU and withdraw entirely out of the US market. But for them it's more lucrative to piss off one judge rather than lose the US share of profits. As the article describes, it's a business decision. But not one that necessarily means life or death (for the company).
      1. abdullahkhalids · · focus · HN ↗
        My understanding from glancing at the hopefully correct sanctions statement [1] is that they are secondary in nature (see for example Sec 3). So the insurance company will face all the same sanctions that the ICC judge is facing if they serve them. They banks will cutoff the insurance company as well, because the banks themselves use US infrastructure.

        The only solution would be similar to what China exercised. The EU passes an order telling all EU entities to not comply with US sanctions or face legal problems. Then it comes down to how the US responds and whether EU can take that hit.

        [1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.whitehouse.gov&#x2F;presidential-actions&#x2F;2025&#x2F;02&#x2F;imposing-sanctions-on-the-international-criminal-court&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.whitehouse.gov&#x2F;presidential-actions&#x2F;2025&#x2F;02&#x2F;impo...

        1. microtonal · · focus · HN ↗
          The only solution would be similar to what China exercised. The EU passes an order telling all EU entities to not comply with US sanctions or face legal problems.

          There are strong calls from the EP now for the EC to prepare the blocking statute:

          <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.politico.eu&#x2F;article&#x2F;block-us-sanctions-on-the-icc-eu-lawmakers-tell-commission&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.politico.eu&#x2F;article&#x2F;block-us-sanctions-on-the-ic...

          <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;finance.ec.europa.eu&#x2F;eu-and-world&#x2F;open-strategic-autonomy&#x2F;extraterritoriality-blocking-statute_en" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;finance.ec.europa.eu&#x2F;eu-and-world&#x2F;open-strategic-aut...

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.