Thread

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

229 points · 173 comments · rbanffy

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. dmitrygr · 1790963364 · focus · HN ↗
  > Regardless of what one personally thinks about the ICC, this isn’t a good look
  Legitimate question. Why should a third party (whom I do not respect)’s opinion of me matter to me? Do you care what my cat thinks about you?
  1. rwmj · 1790963643 · focus · HN ↗
    Depending on where you live, your country may or may not have decided to give legal force to ICC rulings by joining the Rome Statute treaty (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute). If you live in a democracy, this was decided by democratic means, and can be changed the same way. This is not a unique situation, there will be many, many other treaties that your country has decided to sign up to.
    dmitrygr · 1790963835 · focus · HN ↗
    Luckily my country is not a party. I don’t want my government (that I elect) outsourcing any decision-making power to a body I do not elect (ICC). As a voter this is a hard NO for me.
    buran77 · 1790966036 · focus · HN ↗
    The answer is staring you in the face but I'm not surprised you never bothered even to scratch the surface. The ICC doesn't replace national courts. Actually it encourages them to do their job. But sometimes the national courts can't settle it. For example the biggest point of an international court is that they should be able to settle international disputes. Get it? Inter-national. That's when the two parties are different countries, each with their own elected representatives and their own judges to decide in each country's favor. So what do you do then? You go to an international body which has no intrinsic bias or conflict of interest, ideally.
    I see how you're trying to twist this into an act of "sovereignty" but not signing up is usually a sign that the respective country is a common perpetrator of exactly the type of crime the ICC would convict (war crimes, genocide, that type of thing). And wouldn't you know it, just check out the list ;).
    flyinglizard · 1790966925 · focus · HN ↗
    ICC is trying to get the elected officials in Israel on trial for enacting a defensive policy they think is vital for the country, and overwhelmingly supported by their public.
    tmnvix · 1790967933 · focus · HN ↗
    A 'defensive policy' put into practice in the territory of another state that is a signatory.
    If you commit crimes in another state, expect to be judged according to their system of law (which in this case includes the ICC).
    flyinglizard · 1790968275 · focus · HN ↗
    Is Hamas (which are the only government in Gaza) a signatory of the ICC convention?
    tmnvix · 1790968735 · focus · HN ↗
    There is a difference between a state and its governing party (or parties).
    Also worth noting that the ICC issued arrest warrants for (now dead) Hamas leaders.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.