Thread

1. tmp10423288442 · 1790970636 · focus · HN ↗

   I sympathize with the ICC judge's plight, but they already violated international law by issuing an arrest warrant for a citizen of a nation that isn't a party to the ICC. Yes, I'm aware that they justify it because Palestine is a party to the ICC, but Palestine isn't an internationally-recognized state for better or worse.

   1. AlotOfReading · 1790972856 · focus · HN ↗

      Regardless of the legal foundation, there isn't much point in having an ICC without the power to go after leaders of non-party states. You can't rely on heads of state to volunteer themselves for prosecution.

      1. tmp10423288442 · 1790977588 · focus · HN ↗

         No, that is the only thing that makes the ICC justifiable under the anarchy of international relations. If a leader of a nation unilaterally revokes the treaty submitting themselves to the ICC's jurisdiction, that's a harder case, and I'd support the ICC going after that nation's citizens if they commit other offenses.

         But if a nation decides not to submit to the ICC, then it's up to the UN Security Council to go after them, and the Security Council was set up intentionally to only allow punishment of leaders where every major power can agree. The Security Council at least tries to work with the reality of international relations, whereas the ICC in this case is way out of line.

   2. tmnvix · 1790979041 · focus · HN ↗

      > Palestine isn't an internationally-recognized state for better or worse.

      Yes, it is.

      From Wikipedia:

      "Palestine is a permanent non-member observer state at the United Nations (UN) and is recognized as a sovereign state by 157 of the UN's 193 member states."

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.