alt Hacker NewsIf you are really of that opinion, does that include not accepting warcrimes committed by the US or Iran? Or Israel (and many other nations, including all arab countries, at least half of Africa, and more)
You see, they have not ratified or withdrawn from the Rome treaty, which is the only UN treaty that talks about war crimes.
What I'm saying, if countries just get to opt out of treaties, where that affects a great deal of other countries (like here, in Iran's case), and that just lets them off the hook, then you can just close up the UN and start WW3 right now. Because that just became unavoidable.
(historically people use "war crimes" for Geneva convention violations too, but those can only be presented to the UNSC, and with China and Iran blocking everything, nothing will ever be accepted there. So if those are warcrimes, that's a purely theoretical thing only)
> does that include not accepting
Their point wasn't about accepting it or not, it was about Iran not being bound by the terms of a treaty they've never ratified. And of course that applies to any state and any treaty.
War crime is something of a different case also because it's a term which exists separately in the popular lexicon and isn't used solely to mean "not in keeping with the terms of the UNSC."
Your comment also seems to be an example of whataboutery. It might be worth considering what prompted that.