Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

'It's surreal': How US sanctions lock ICC judges out of daily life

irishtimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 59 posts

Re: 'It's surreal': How US sanctions lock ICC judges out of daily life

#31

Post by jameshilliard »

dragonwriter wrote: post #27
jameshilliard wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A warning about what? It's basically a warning against attempting to apply jurisdiction to countries that are not parties to the Rome Statute. > That the US thinks it rules the world and is terrified enough to go after individuals who just happen to work for the wrong employer? The sanctions are due to specific actions(i.e. rulings) taken by the individuals against US and their allies.[0] > That other parts of the…

> It's basically a warning against attempting to apply jurisdiction to countries that are not parties to the Rome Statute. The crimes prosecuted by the ICC are accepted by the US as matters of universal jurisdiction under international law, so the US can have no legitimate objection to (1) any country exercising jurisdiction over them wherever they are alleged to occur, or (2) any country exercising its sovereign pow…

> The crimes prosecuted by the ICC are accepted by the US as matters of universal jurisdiction under international law, so the US can have no legitimate objection to (1) any country exercising jurisdiction over them wherever they are alleged to occur

There's plenty of legitimate objections such as not trusting a foreign court to appropriately decide international law.

> (2) any country exercising its sovereign power to delegate its exercise of jurisdiction over them anywhere to an international tribunal, like the ICC, either generally, under specified terms (such as those in the Rome Statute), or ad hoc.

In the case of Afghanistan, neither the US nor the Taliban are delegating that sort of authority to the ICC.

> And they certainly have the least basis for doing so when the country on whose territory they are alleged to have occurred, and who would thus have jurisdiction whether or not they were matters of universal jurisdiction under international law, does so.

IMO that's a pretty weak argument, especially when you have states being prosecuted which are non-signatories to the Rome Statute or are not full UN member states like in the case of Palestine.

> The actual objection is not the broad principle you are trying to articulate, but it is to the idea of Israel being accountable under international law for crimes for which it has the full support of the US government, irrespective of any theory of law.

The UN has a very well documented history of bias against Israel.[0] It seems entirely reasonable to me that neither the US nor Israel would trust a UN court, especially for anything related to wars involving Israel.

[0] https://unwatch.org/2024-unga-resolutions-on-israel-vs-rest-...

Re: 'It's surreal': How US sanctions lock ICC judges out of daily life

#32

Post by aaomidi »

jameshilliard wrote: post #13
helterskelter wrote: post #4

The US wielding the sanctions banhammer the way they have been recently will only weaken its power over time and create opportunity for economic rivals like China. Every time they (mis)use it they create incentive for people to create alternatives to the US financial system. You won't see sanctions become completely completely toothless overnight, but I could see in maybe 15-20 years that getting around US sanctions…

> The US wielding the sanctions banhammer the way they have been recently will only weaken its power over time and create opportunity for economic rivals like China. China is not party to the Rome Statute, just like the US and Israel, I would expect they would retaliate against the ICC if the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Xi Jinping. > Every time they (mis)use it they create incentive for people to create alternat…

> I would expect they would retaliate against the ICC if the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Xi Jinping.

Funny that we’re using this example when the ICC has issued a warrant against someone who isn’t the US head of state

Re: 'It's surreal': How US sanctions lock ICC judges out of daily life

#33

Post by wtfwhateven »

jameshilliard wrote: post #31
dragonwriter wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's basically a warning against attempting to apply jurisdiction to countries that are not parties to the Rome Statute. The crimes prosecuted by the ICC are accepted by the US as matters of universal jurisdiction under international law, so the US can have no legitimate objection to (1) any country exercising jurisdiction over them wherever they are alleged to occur, or (2) any country exercising its sovereign pow…

> The crimes prosecuted by the ICC are accepted by the US as matters of universal jurisdiction under international law, so the US can have no legitimate objection to (1) any country exercising jurisdiction over them wherever they are alleged to occur There's plenty of legitimate objections such as not trusting a foreign court to appropriately decide international law. > (2) any country exercising its sovereign power…

For the lazy, that unwatch link can be summarized as "israel keeps doing awful things and refuses to stop but the UN is biased against israel because it doesn't condemn hamas in every single resolution that also mentions israel", aka "we know we are doing awful things but Hamas does too stop picking on us!"

Re: 'It's surreal': How US sanctions lock ICC judges out of daily life

#34

Post by nielsbot »

jameshilliard wrote: post #31
dragonwriter wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's basically a warning against attempting to apply jurisdiction to countries that are not parties to the Rome Statute. The crimes prosecuted by the ICC are accepted by the US as matters of universal jurisdiction under international law, so the US can have no legitimate objection to (1) any country exercising jurisdiction over them wherever they are alleged to occur, or (2) any country exercising its sovereign pow…

> The crimes prosecuted by the ICC are accepted by the US as matters of universal jurisdiction under international law, so the US can have no legitimate objection to (1) any country exercising jurisdiction over them wherever they are alleged to occur There's plenty of legitimate objections such as not trusting a foreign court to appropriately decide international law. > (2) any country exercising its sovereign power…

Israel is a colonialist occupation project. So the UN being "biased" against it is good and correct.

Re: 'It's surreal': How US sanctions lock ICC judges out of daily life

#35

Post by jameshilliard »

wtfwhateven wrote: post #33
jameshilliard wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The crimes prosecuted by the ICC are accepted by the US as matters of universal jurisdiction under international law, so the US can have no legitimate objection to (1) any country exercising jurisdiction over them wherever they are alleged to occur There's plenty of legitimate objections such as not trusting a foreign court to appropriately decide international law. > (2) any country exercising its sovereign power…

For the lazy, that unwatch link can be summarized as "israel keeps doing awful things and refuses to stop but the UN is biased against israel because it doesn't condemn hamas in every single resolution that also mentions israel", aka "we know we are doing awful things but Hamas does too stop picking on us!"

> For the lazy, that unwatch link can be summarized as "israel keeps doing awful things and refuses to stop but the UN is biased against israel because it doesn't condemn hamas in every single resolution that also mentions israel", aka "we know we are doing awful things but Hamas does too stop picking on us!"

From the link it states "From 2015 through 2023, the UN General Assembly has adopted 154 resolutions against Israel and 71 against other countries.".

This is clearly a case of extremely blatant bias, no matter how bad you think Israel is, it certainly doesn't deserve twice the resolutions against it than the rest of the world combined. The UN has basically thrown out all credibility when it comes to anything related to Israel.

Re: 'It's surreal': How US sanctions lock ICC judges out of daily life

#36

Post by arunabha »

jameshilliard wrote: post #22
nielsbot wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think the ICC has much bigger credibility issues trying to impose jurisdiction over conflicts involving countries that are not parties to the Rome Statute. such as…?

> such as…? Israel and the US for example.

Way to go not answering the question. The Romans has a pretty apt saying for cases like this

Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses

Re: 'It's surreal': How US sanctions lock ICC judges out of daily life

#37

Post by jameshilliard »

nielsbot wrote: post #34
jameshilliard wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The crimes prosecuted by the ICC are accepted by the US as matters of universal jurisdiction under international law, so the US can have no legitimate objection to (1) any country exercising jurisdiction over them wherever they are alleged to occur There's plenty of legitimate objections such as not trusting a foreign court to appropriately decide international law. > (2) any country exercising its sovereign power…

Israel is a colonialist occupation project. So the UN being "biased" against it is good and correct.

> Israel is a colonialist occupation project.

Saying a country made up heavily of refugees fleeing persecution is just a colonialist occupation project is pretty ridiculous IMO.

> So the UN being "biased" against it is good and correct.

There are many countries(including the US) that much more easily fit into your "colonialist occupation project" label that the UN doesn't go after.

Re: 'It's surreal': How US sanctions lock ICC judges out of daily life

#38

Post by arunabha »

jameshilliard wrote: post #31
dragonwriter wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's basically a warning against attempting to apply jurisdiction to countries that are not parties to the Rome Statute. The crimes prosecuted by the ICC are accepted by the US as matters of universal jurisdiction under international law, so the US can have no legitimate objection to (1) any country exercising jurisdiction over them wherever they are alleged to occur, or (2) any country exercising its sovereign pow…

> The crimes prosecuted by the ICC are accepted by the US as matters of universal jurisdiction under international law, so the US can have no legitimate objection to (1) any country exercising jurisdiction over them wherever they are alleged to occur There's plenty of legitimate objections such as not trusting a foreign court to appropriately decide international law. > (2) any country exercising its sovereign power…

> There's plenty of legitimate objections such as not trusting a foreign court to appropriately decide international law.

So, which country do you think should decide international law?

Re: 'It's surreal': How US sanctions lock ICC judges out of daily life

#39

Post by 47282847 »

jameshilliard wrote: post #29
rendx wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ICC claims jurisdiction in Palestine. Whether Israel or the US accept that is their business. Nobody is interfering with their national autonomy. I see no "imposition" of jurisdiction here by the ICC. The only country that is imposing their jurisdiction here, and enforcing it outside of their own jurisdiction, are the US. The ICC merely issues documents; everybody is free to agree or disagree with their documents. Th…

> ICC claims jurisdiction in Palestine. Whether Israel or the US accepts that is their business. But that still doesn't explain the legal basis of going against individual employees of the ICC. I see no "imposition" of jurisdiction here by the ICC or any of the countries that signed the Rome statute. The ICC is attempting to have arrest warrants enforced through cooperation with states that are parties to the Rome St…

The fundamental difference is that ICC invites partners to agree with their legal assessment. It is each country’s sovereign decision to enforce it or not. The US applies force and boldly assumes they not only have the power but the right to do so, outside of their national jurisdiction. That is US exceptionalism at its best.

If you act like a bully, you will not make friends. It’s as simple as that.

Re: 'It's surreal': How US sanctions lock ICC judges out of daily life

#40

Post by winterbloom »

TacticalCoder wrote: post #10
CrzyLngPwd wrote: post #2

What did she do wrong?

Let me first say I find it totally disgusting that she's getting debanked and it's not the first time: Canada did debank truckers and people organizing to send aid to truckers a few years ago. But to answer your question... What she did was zero condemnation of what even Amnesty International qualifies as a crime against humanity by legally elected Hamas (classified as a terror organization) but then overstepping her…

You got down voted by haters lol, don't worry there are some of us who support you
Post reply on HN