alt Hacker NewsI know there's a lot of (deserved) hate for the current administration, but the ICC situation is somewhat nuanced. You can argue that international law doesn't / shouldn't exist because each country has the right to self-determination, and any disputes on that line are always decided by who has more economic sway or military strength. There's no world police that a smaller and less powerful country can send to arrest the leaders of a more powerful neighbor, unless they find enough friends with fighter jets.
Now, as it happens, the US is one of the most economically and militarily powerful states out there, so they're the closest we have to an actual world police - but again, that police doesn't follow "international law", they act in what they think is the best interest of the West (or the US specifically). That's how all regional powers roll, albeit on a smaller scale. Russia and China make claims to neighboring states, Germany unceremoniously protects its economic interests in the EU, Iran bankrolls terrorists in neighboring states who in turn bomb Iran, and so on.
The ICC is a bit unusual in that it's an initiative of some Western states trying to get the most powerful state to play by their rules. It's a nice try, but also... obviously doomed? And it's not something the US can ignore, because the court does assert the authority to arrest and try US servicemen and politicians. So this was kinda inevitable, and if you think the sanctions are bad, consider the bipartisan Hague Invasion Act of 2002: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
Replies
you can argue many things. This isn't arguing.
One can also argue that, exactly because there is the right to self-determination, there is a huge need for a inter-national and super-national organism to ensure that a right of some country doesn't jeopardise the rights of others.
Is the ICC the right organism? Maybe, maybe not; we can argue about that.
I thought the ultimate root of this situation is still 3rd Reich and the realization that, for the most part, the Nazis didn’t break any laws. They passed laws, legally, making all their horrid designs legal, then carried them out.
Which is a long way of saying, there’s a consensus that there are standards higher than national law we may want to uphold.
I know ICC is later, and also US never joined, in a somewhat hypocritical compromise. But at least the purpose and motivation, IMO, are clean and noble.
USA does not seem to comply with its own treaties and agreements and now you are saying that since it is the most powerful country then it is entitled to it. Human rights won't matter only if USA says so but otherwise Americans can yell on top of their lungs that it is being violated elsewhere. That behavior simply means that USA has double standards and seeks to be above the laws and refuses to be accountable. But which laws and which accountability would that be if it can deny that there are laws that would incriminate them in wrong doing! That is by definition a Rouge state.
Thank you for actually addressing the philosophical elephant in the room. There's way too much vitriol substituting rational thought when it comes to courts in general, doubly so for international courts. They are compacts and agreements, no matter what scale you're looking at, and there's a reason depictions of "Justice" as a lady hold scales and a sword. Neither one works without the other. The term "outlaw" used to mean outside the protection of the law, in both directions. What do these courts protect America from?
That being said, sanctioning them feels a bit odd. Might be some latent jingoism but I don't see a threat from the ICC being substantial to US citizens.