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

51–59 of 59 posts

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

#51

Post by jameshilliard »

wtfwhateven wrote: post #49
jameshilliard wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not at all, not even remotely. I'm alarmed anyone can sincerely interpret it that way and ignore what prompted those resolutions. It is simply proof that UN resolutions do nothing. Israel continues its abhorrent behavior regardless of how many resolutions happen. UN resolutions do nothing in general, that's not particularly specific to Israel, however the sheer overwhelming amount of them being anti-Israel resoluti…

>There are many horrible conflicts throughout the world(i.e. Sudan, Syria, Myanmar) So? Are you saying no resolutions were passed regarding them? >the Israel-Palestinian conflict is quite far from the worst by virtually all metrics By what metrics exactly? >UNWatch is focused on the UN Nope. It is focused on pretending Israel has never done anything wrong ever and has been for a while now. >The UN doesn't have much p…

> So? Are you saying no resolutions were passed regarding them?

I'm saying that those conflicts are significantly worse than the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

> By what metrics exactly?

Deaths and human rights violations to start with.

> It is focused on pretending Israel has never done anything wrong ever and has been for a while now.

Where do you see them doing that?

> In the present? No there is not.

That's just not remotely factually accurate, here's just one to start with:

Sudan with Nearly 25 million affected by famine(far more than the combined population of Israel/Palestine) with 4 million children acutely malnourished(far more than the entire population of Gaza)[0]

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict doesn't even come close to these numbers in terms of deaths and humanitarian issues.

The fact that you think the Israel-Palestinian conflict is the worst conflict in the world right now I think really highlights the issue with bias.

> Your retort would only make sense if my hypothetical didn't explicitly state "committing crimes and keep being arrested for them".

Being Jewish was a crime worthy of arrest in Nazi Germany.

> If I keep assaulting people on camera and keep being arrested for those assaulting people does it make any sense to complain about the police arresting me all the time instead of realizing my own behavior (assaulting people) is why I keep being arrested? According to you that makes perfect sense.

The world has plenty of horrible conflicts, many far worse than the Israel-Palestinian conflict by essentially all metrics, and when the "police"(UN) only seem to care about "arresting"(Making UN resolutions against) Israel it shows how blatantly biased they(the UN) are.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudanese_civil_war_(2023%E2%80...

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

#52

Post by 47282847 »

jameshilliard wrote: post #50
rendx wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This isn't really accurate from a strict reading of the Rome Statute, there are treaty obligations for party states Which are members voluntarily , and are enforcing whatever law they want on their own , national territory; not outside of it. > Since the US considers the ICC a serious threat to sovereignty Again: Fact is, the ICC is writing policy recommendations. Member states decided to adopt/agree with them, and…

> Which are members voluntarily, and are enforcing whatever law they want on their own, national territory; not outside of it. A big reason for the ICC being created was to have an organization that could enforce certain laws that national courts would have trouble enforcing on their own. Obviously states can choose to violate the treaty but it certainly was the intent that ICC arrest are enforceable. > Again: Fact i…

I honestly don’t know if you cannot see the difference between issuing a warrant to be enforced by sovereign nations (or not), and actively interfering on foreign soil, or you simply don’t want to, and to avoid having to agree with that distinction you’re making up random arguments. If you have the opinion that a country has the right to act in that way, simply say so.

The ICC has zero executive power and as such by definition cannot act violently. There is a clear difference between ICCs publications and a country‘s decision or refusal to enforce it, and the consequences if Visa were to refuse implementing the sanctions. You are not honestly proposing that they have a choice.

Just because you have the means of violence doesn’t mean it is right (beneficial) to apply them.

If I enter your home, and refuse to leave, feel free to extract me. Don’t try that in mine.

I think I made this distinction sufficiently clear by now.

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

#53

Post by jameshilliard »

47282847 wrote: post #52
jameshilliard wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which are members voluntarily, and are enforcing whatever law they want on their own, national territory; not outside of it. A big reason for the ICC being created was to have an organization that could enforce certain laws that national courts would have trouble enforcing on their own. Obviously states can choose to violate the treaty but it certainly was the intent that ICC arrest are enforceable. > Again: Fact i…

I honestly don’t know if you cannot see the difference between issuing a warrant to be enforced by sovereign nations (or not), and actively interfering on foreign soil, or you simply don’t want to, and to avoid having to agree with that distinction you’re making up random arguments. If you have the opinion that a country has the right to act in that way, simply say so. The ICC has zero executive power and as such by…

> I honestly don’t know if you cannot see the difference between issuing a warrant to be enforced by sovereign nations (or not), and actively interfering on foreign soil, or you simply don’t want to, and to avoid having to agree with that distinction you’re making up random arguments.

I'm not saying there are no differences, but your apparent claim that "issuing a warrant to be enforced by sovereign nations (or not)" in the manner the ICC does is not itself a form of "actively interfering on foreign soil" just doesn't seem to be aligning with the reality of the situation.

> If you have the opinion that a country has the right to act in that way, simply say so.

I would agree these sort of sanctions are somewhat problematic in general, however given that the ICC has decided to issue actual arrest warrants backed by the power of a legally binding international treaty I think it's also hard to argue that the sanctions are much of an overreaction given the real threat to the interests of the US and allies they pose. IMO arrest warrants are a step above sanctions in terms of their potential threat to those being targeted.

> The ICC has zero executive power and as such by definition cannot act violently. There is a clear difference between ICCs publications and a country‘s decision or refusal to enforce it, and the consequences if Visa were to refuse implementing the sanctions. You are not honestly proposing that they have a choice.

The Rome Statute is a binding treaty for State Parties, many of these states appear to take a fairly strict interpretation in regards to their obligations to enforce an arrest warrant issued by the ICC in their own national laws/policies, this is in effect those states delegating the power of state violence to the ICC. Just because some states decide to violate a binding international treaty doesn't mean the ICC is entirely unable to exercise the delegated power of state violence. Likewise just because the ICC can only indirectly exercise the power of state violence doesn't mean it doesn't have that power at all.

> Just because you have the means of violence doesn’t mean it is right (beneficial) to apply them.

My argument is more that the ICC and the US are both in effect using the threat of state violence(arrest warrants/sanctions) as a way to advance their goals internationally.

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

#54

Post by jameshilliard »

aaomidi wrote: post #32
jameshilliard wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

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

The ICC seems to have no problem issuing arrest warrants for government leaders of countries allied with the US involved in conflicts located in territories where there are no fully UN recognized State Parties to the Rome Statue. Additionally the ICC has ongoing investigations into US personnel directly. The ICC has arguably given the US sufficient justification for some form of retaliation(i.e. sanctions) for jurisdictional overreach.

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

#55

Post by croes »

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.

The ICC is responsibility if the crime is committed by a citizen or happens in the territory of a state party of the Rome Statute. Palestine is such a state party

Additionally the UN can hand over cases in non-state parties to the ICC. IIRC that also happened.

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

#56

Post by croes »

jameshilliard wrote: post #54
aaomidi wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

> Funny that we’re using this example when the ICC has issued a warrant against someone who isn’t the US head of state The ICC seems to have no problem issuing arrest warrants for government leaders of countries allied with the US involved in conflicts located in territories where there are no fully UN recognized State Parties to the Rome Statue. Additionally the ICC has ongoing investigations into US personnel direc…

> The ICC has arguably given the US sufficient justification for some form of retaliation(i.e. sanctions) for jurisdictional overreach.

More like the US don’t understand when the ICC is allowed to act

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

#57

Post by croes »

drnick1 wrote: post #8
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might create opportunity for the EU. China routinely deploys similar sanctions against people who e.g. recognize the independence of Taiwan or refuse to buy cotton from Xinjiang.

The only problem is that the EU is kind of irrelevant when it comes to "financial systems."

It’s enough if they create an inter-EU system. The loss for a the US services would be big enough. Same way the Euro threatened the US Dollar

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

#58

Post by jameshilliard »

croes wrote: post #55
jameshilliard wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The ICC is responsibility if the crime is committed by a citizen or happens in the territory of a state party of the Rome Statute. Palestine is such a state party Additionally the UN can hand over cases in non-state parties to the ICC. IIRC that also happened.

> The ICC is responsibility if the crime is committed by a citizen or happens in the territory of a state party of the Rome Statute. Palestine is such a state party

Depends on how you define a state, Palestine not being a full state able to delegate jurisdiction is a big argument against the ICC having any jurisdiction over the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Palestine is neither a full UN member state, nor a state recognized by either the US or Israel. The ICC appears to be trying to set some of precedent for an extremely broad interpretation of their jurisdiction which is clearly at odds with US/Israel views.

> Additionally the UN can hand over cases in non-state parties to the ICC. IIRC that also happened.

What case was that?

Post reply on HN