The International Criminal Court is seeking the arrest warrants on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity over the October 7 attacks on Israel and the subsequent war in Gaza.
I mean… yes you do, since that’s a little bit how international law works? Countries who do not sign and ratify the Rome statute and then remain in there aren’t governed by the ICC in the same way.
You will see in the excerpt you quoted, the reason the ICC believes it has jurisdiction is because of events taking place in Palestine, which has taken part in the Rome Statute previously.
And the United States has a law that says it will militarily invade The Hague if any US service member is arrested and held by the court. It came about along with all the other legislative bullshit in the years after 9/11/01. The US had previously been a founding member of the ICC, but withdrew for reasons of sovereignty.
By your logic the nazis shouldn’t have been tried at the Hauge…
Is that what youre intentionally saying? Or did you not think it through?
Like even this bit:
And the United States has a law that says it will militarily invade The Hague if any US service member is arrested and held by the court. It came about along with all the other legislative bullshit in the years after 9/11/01. The US had previously been a founding member of the ICC, but withdrew for reasons of sovereignty.
If no US service member could be tried at the Hauge because the US didn’t sign the Rome agreement…
First: it’s not my logic. It’s how this part of international law works. The International Criminal Court wasn’t created until 1998, and the statute that governs it only officially came into power in 2002. Not all countries have signed, and some (including the US) have withdrawn from it. This means that technically the ICC doesn’t have any jurisdiction over things that happen within its territory.
The US codified it into a domestic law because it doesn’t believe its should be beholden to any law higher than its domestic ones, and the United States often does shady things in countries where the ICC does have jurisdiction, making it a risk that US citizens (and leaders) can be arrested for crimes that occur there. So the US Congress wrote domestic policy stating that it reserved the right to invade if its citizens were held for trial.
And Bibi didn’t join the US military. But the US has shown it’s willing to support his administration through an awful lot of shit, and the US doesn’t have any ambiguity about how it regards the ICC.
Finally, are you referring to the Nuremberg trials? Nazis weren’t tried in The Hague court we are discussing, and I’m not sure any nazi trials happened there at all.
Edit: I don’t understand the downvotes. This is literally just how the International Criminal Court works.
Yes, the origin of one of the international courts in The Hague, specifically the one that prosecutes individuals, the International Criminal Court, comes from the Nuremberg Trials. I never disputed that lineage. Those nazi trials happened in Nuremberg, not The Hague, and before the ICC existed.
the origin of one of the international courts in The Hague, specifically the one that prosecutes individuals, the International Criminal Court, comes from the Nuremberg Trials.
The ICC was created in 2002, just FYI. So long after the Nuremberg Trials. And the ICJ predates Nuremberg via its predecessor entities.
Thanks for clarifying, I’m aware of that and I think I made mention to that date in my initial reply.
What you quoted was just referring to the article the other poster linked, which goes through how the Nuremberg trials were the primary venue of defining the four major crimes against humanity, and how it impacted the creation of the ICC later.
I am obviously having a hard time articulating my point here, though. I’m literally just trying to explain a little bit about how this particular facet of an international legal regime works.
Fun fact about the ICJ, though: the USA withdrew from the court after it was found guilty of mining Nicaragua illegally. I really wish it did more to actually follow the legal norms it tried to push in its ideology.
International law gets weird. Tradition is absolutely a legitimate way for something to get recognized. That works because of Sovereignty and the intense political nature of anything between countries. So basically, if someone got an Israeli to the Hague, then the Netherlands could point at the decades of precedent for the moral high ground in refusing to release them. Whether that works depends on politics and what people think. So just because we didn’t sign the paper does not mean we can resist it forever. If the world wants to head in that direction, the best we can do is dig our feet in and make it take longer.
And no sane US president would use the Hague Invasion Act. It’s an open question if the military would even follow the order. that would require invading a NATO ally with strong defense systems tied into their neighbors. It would be a great way to obliterate our world standing in one fell swoop.
I mean… yes you do, since that’s a little bit how international law works? Countries who do not sign and ratify the Rome statute and then remain in there aren’t governed by the ICC in the same way.
You will see in the excerpt you quoted, the reason the ICC believes it has jurisdiction is because of events taking place in Palestine, which has taken part in the Rome Statute previously.
And the United States has a law that says it will militarily invade The Hague if any US service member is arrested and held by the court. It came about along with all the other legislative bullshit in the years after 9/11/01. The US had previously been a founding member of the ICC, but withdrew for reasons of sovereignty.
Sovereignity, my ass. They just don’t want war crimes committed by their own military investigated by an independent body.
Correct.
That position and sovereignty are not mutually opposed, depending on the view you take towards international law.
Hittem with that “sovereignty to do what?”
By your logic the nazis shouldn’t have been tried at the Hauge…
Is that what youre intentionally saying? Or did you not think it through?
Like even this bit:
If no US service member could be tried at the Hauge because the US didn’t sign the Rome agreement…
Why pass a law saying we’re not subject to it?
And when did Bibi join the US military anyways?
I missed that one…
First: it’s not my logic. It’s how this part of international law works. The International Criminal Court wasn’t created until 1998, and the statute that governs it only officially came into power in 2002. Not all countries have signed, and some (including the US) have withdrawn from it. This means that technically the ICC doesn’t have any jurisdiction over things that happen within its territory.
The US codified it into a domestic law because it doesn’t believe its should be beholden to any law higher than its domestic ones, and the United States often does shady things in countries where the ICC does have jurisdiction, making it a risk that US citizens (and leaders) can be arrested for crimes that occur there. So the US Congress wrote domestic policy stating that it reserved the right to invade if its citizens were held for trial.
And Bibi didn’t join the US military. But the US has shown it’s willing to support his administration through an awful lot of shit, and the US doesn’t have any ambiguity about how it regards the ICC.
Finally, are you referring to the Nuremberg trials? Nazis weren’t tried in The Hague court we are discussing, and I’m not sure any nazi trials happened there at all.
Edit: I don’t understand the downvotes. This is literally just how the International Criminal Court works.
…
https://www.roberthjackson.org/speech-and-writing/the-influence-of-the-nuremberg-trial-on-international-criminal-law/
I think that will help you understand
Yes, the origin of one of the international courts in The Hague, specifically the one that prosecutes individuals, the International Criminal Court, comes from the Nuremberg Trials. I never disputed that lineage. Those nazi trials happened in Nuremberg, not The Hague, and before the ICC existed.
The ICC was created in 2002, just FYI. So long after the Nuremberg Trials. And the ICJ predates Nuremberg via its predecessor entities.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court
You’re meaningfully correct in everything you’re saying though. Just saying this for full context
Thanks for clarifying, I’m aware of that and I think I made mention to that date in my initial reply.
What you quoted was just referring to the article the other poster linked, which goes through how the Nuremberg trials were the primary venue of defining the four major crimes against humanity, and how it impacted the creation of the ICC later.
I am obviously having a hard time articulating my point here, though. I’m literally just trying to explain a little bit about how this particular facet of an international legal regime works.
Fun fact about the ICJ, though: the USA withdrew from the court after it was found guilty of mining Nicaragua illegally. I really wish it did more to actually follow the legal norms it tried to push in its ideology.
Edit: mixed up ICJ and ICC at the end.
Well that’s not true. Our Constitution clearly places treaties above domestic law.
International law gets weird. Tradition is absolutely a legitimate way for something to get recognized. That works because of Sovereignty and the intense political nature of anything between countries. So basically, if someone got an Israeli to the Hague, then the Netherlands could point at the decades of precedent for the moral high ground in refusing to release them. Whether that works depends on politics and what people think. So just because we didn’t sign the paper does not mean we can resist it forever. If the world wants to head in that direction, the best we can do is dig our feet in and make it take longer.
And no sane US president would use the Hague Invasion Act. It’s an open question if the military would even follow the order. that would require invading a NATO ally with strong defense systems tied into their neighbors. It would be a great way to obliterate our world standing in one fell swoop.
US law doesn’t say that it WILL it says that it CAN. As an American I’d be wayyyy beyond pissed off if we did I to rescue fucking Bibi.