21–30 of 39 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That position is pure hubris.
ICC signatories: - Europe - LATAM - subsaharan Africa ICC nonsignatories: - US - China - India - Russia - Turkey - Israel - Pakistan - Egypt - Saudi Arabia Hubris is imagining a situation in which The Hague Act is ever tested in the first place!
This is classic American arrogance, trying to undermine international law for its own selfish agenda. It reinforces the need for the EU to break free from US tech.
You are wrong. It is not 'American' anything. This is plain corporate malfeasance and corruption. If anything its highly anti-American, borderline communist/state regime. American values include many things, one of the more important being free speech. Such a violation deserves reciprocity, stop blaming issues on the wrong things.
However, that's not the de-facto definition of the US as a geopolitical player right now and Europe can't afford to pretend those two are the same.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That position is pure hubris.
ICC signatories: - Europe - LATAM - subsaharan Africa ICC nonsignatories: - US - China - India - Russia - Turkey - Israel - Pakistan - Egypt - Saudi Arabia Hubris is imagining a situation in which The Hague Act is ever tested in the first place!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ICC signatories: - Europe - LATAM - subsaharan Africa ICC nonsignatories: - US - China - India - Russia - Turkey - Israel - Pakistan - Egypt - Saudi Arabia Hubris is imagining a situation in which The Hague Act is ever tested in the first place!
Israel never agreed to abide by the ICC and they're still trying to claim authority over Israeli actions? That's crazy.
Here the argument goes that the State of Palestine is a party, and Gaza is somehow its territory, even though it has never controlled or governed Gaza.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Israel never agreed to abide by the ICC and they're still trying to claim authority over Israeli actions? That's crazy.
Yeah, the ICC considers itself to have jurisdiction over crimes committed by non-parties if they're within the territory of a party to the Rome Statute. Here the argument goes that the State of Palestine is a party, and Gaza is somehow its territory, even though it has never controlled or governed Gaza.
I think the ICCs argument of jurisdiction is entirely reasonable, and consistent with how the court has ruled previously.
EDIT: Since this is Hacker News and we like nerdy details, I’ve linked below the 2021 ruling that established it’s jurisdiction of Palestine. The ruling was 3-1 and explicitly included the West Bank including East Jerusalem, and Gaza.
https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/icc-pre-trial-chamber-i-issues-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, the ICC considers itself to have jurisdiction over crimes committed by non-parties if they're within the territory of a party to the Rome Statute. Here the argument goes that the State of Palestine is a party, and Gaza is somehow its territory, even though it has never controlled or governed Gaza.
The State of Palestine has two government at the moment which govern separate territories, just like Libya, Yemen, or China. Neither government of Palestine disputes the ICCs jurisdiction over Gaza. And unlike China there have been numerous attempts to unify the two governments, most of them were stopped by Israel. I think the ICCs argument of jurisdiction is entirely reasonable, and consistent with how the court has…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, the ICC considers itself to have jurisdiction over crimes committed by non-parties if they're within the territory of a party to the Rome Statute. Here the argument goes that the State of Palestine is a party, and Gaza is somehow its territory, even though it has never controlled or governed Gaza.
The State of Palestine has two government at the moment which govern separate territories, just like Libya, Yemen, or China. Neither government of Palestine disputes the ICCs jurisdiction over Gaza. And unlike China there have been numerous attempts to unify the two governments, most of them were stopped by Israel. I think the ICCs argument of jurisdiction is entirely reasonable, and consistent with how the court has…
Libya, Yemen, and China are a bit different since they used to be unified states. It's great that there's a vision for a unified State of Palestine, but I don't think it makes any sense for the international community to pretend that exists today. In reality the current State of Palestine is represented only by the PLO, which has never controlled Gaza, not is it supported by most Gazans.
China is an interesting comparison though. Hypothetically if the PRC wanted to join the ICC, would the ICC understand that as including Taiwan, regardless of what the ROC or the people of Taiwan wanted? If so, that seems like a bad situation made possible by China's leverage, and not something the international community should try to replicate with Palestine.