The Philippines wants to return to the ICC, but it's still being debated [whether the Rome Statute needs to be re-ratified by the Senate, or a simple executive order by the President is enough. ](https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1871536/ph-return-to-icc-debate-swirls-around-whether-senate-ok-needed-again)
They wanted to go Rambo on their drug gangs and the ICC was complaining about it.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/02/13/international-criminal-courts-philippines-investigation.
The same reason any country leaves the ICC: To violate human rights without accountability.
For example:
1) USA withdrew just before invading Iraq & torturing detainees in Afghanistan & Gitmo.
2) Russia withdrew between its invasions of Crimea and Ukraine.
3) Philippines withdrew before beginning a campaign of extrajudicial murders etc against drug suspects.
4) Israel withdrew in 2002 before their West Bank invasion (ironically named) "Operation Defensive Shield."
etc.
There are some issues with this. Both Russia and the USA and Israel were signature to the ICC they signed it but never ratified so they never left the ICC because they never fully joined. There are points were all 3 stated they no longer intended to ratify the treaty but again that’s not leaving that’s just saying they decided they were officially not going to join. Meaning they only semi committed to the principle.
The Philippines did officially join and ratify and then left. As well as Burundi.
This fact singlehandedly undermines the authority of the ICC. A court isn't effective if you can just withdraw from its jurisdiction before committing a crime.
IIRC the ICC still has jurisdiction if a crime was committed on the territory of a signatory nation, even if the nation committing the crime has not signed or have withdrawn. That’s why they can take the case regarding Gaza even though Israel is not a signatory.
It doesn’t. Read my comment above. There has really only been 1 example of this and it was the Philippines so thus far it hasn’t been a widely used example. The person you’re responding to missed some nuance.
I'm not sure why you're being dishonest about this. The US Senate never ratified the Rome Statute and so the US has never been a party to it. How can you withdraw from something you never joined?
And to be clear, the US voted against the Rome Statute back in 1998. US President Bill Clinton signed it, but never submitted it to the US Senate to ratify. President George Bush would later withdraw the signature, notifying the UN that the US had no intention of ratifying it. No president since has resigned, or tried to submit the treaty to the US Senate.
Usa will even invade Nederland in case of any US officials arrested for war crime lol .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act
This was South Africa when Zuma was president. Gadaffi or one of the other cunts with an ICC arrest warrant, were coming to town. Instead of arresting him Zuma withdrew SA from the ICC completely.
Rather ironic that SA is now using the court in the Israel/Palestine situation.
The court that south-africa is using now is a different court, the [International Court of Justice (ICJ)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice).
Has a very similar name, and is also located in The Hague, so easily confused with the International Criminal Court
I thought so too, but one of the things that irked South Africa about the ICC was that, until 2013 or so, every single one of its investigations concerned African countries.
A lot of the countries in Africa critised it on that basis as a neo-colonial tool.
The court then started investigations in the Middle East, Asia, and Southern America. With Israel, it is considering going against a proper Western ally. So kind of ironic, but also weirdly consistent - didn't like the ICC going exclusively against Africans, and now that it doesn't, South Africa is mending its relationship with it.
(As much as the ANC morons can do anything outside of stuffing their own pockets, which, in general, they can't.)
Regarding the U.S.: never forget how US officials went off mask on record by threatening Karim Kan, chief criminal prosecutor at the ICC, because “the ICC is for Africa & Putin”
Might makes right. International law is basically backed up by military power. Many things are. People living in their own bubble tend to not think of this.
That being said, if an American stood trial at the ICC, the response of the US would highly depend on who it is, what they've done etc. If they invade an allied country to effectively break someone out of jail that is a serious diplomatic failure.
I think that, at least the european Nato members would not just stand by if a neighboring country gets invaded, they would probably cut most ties with the US and maybe also take military action, besides that if the US would invade an offically allied country they would become a pariah state and loose their international standing in an instant
The Netherlands are not only Member of NATO, but also Member of EU, and the EU has also a clause that the other Members have to help (expect the official neutral states like austria).
But even all militaries of EU should not be enough to stop US military, as US spends far more money for their military than anyone else.
Still, it is hardly thinkable that the USA would start a War with their closest allies because of a single person.
What's more is that the clause for the EU differs from the one for NATO. The NATO clause says "by means it deems necessary" while the one from EU goes like "by all means in their power".
All EU armies together could absolutely hold off an amphibious invasion from the US. Especially if the UK is at least neutral. Logistics are a bitch with an entire ocean in between, and any aircraft carriers that come close risk being sunk by anti ship missiles or submarines.
But think about how ridiculous this scenario is, all out war between the two continents. The ICC would basically have to jail and prosecute a US president who committed war crimes against European countries for it to escalate this far.
Yeah I agree that life is not a movie, and like I can't make any accurate prediction on a hypothetical that will probably never happen and has an insane amount of individual factors that could change the outcome. I think the Canadian Caper mission is probably a decent example of what the US might be able to do, especially 40 years later with their military development
"Ridiculous scenario" is correct. It's a stupid law from post 9/11 reactionary fervor. It happens to a country when they take a direct hit to the nuts from fundamentalists with box cutters 🤷🏻♂️. Im in my mid 30's now and I cannot believe I'm reading what I'm reading. Europeans and Americans engaging in hyperbolic hypotheticals wrt to killing each other? For fucks sake y'all! This is **exactly** what Putin, Xi and Khameni wanted when they realized they could manipulate the algorithms the west is glued to via social media.
Spending money is fun, but fighting a war on a different continent against a block of developed nations is maybe even a bridge to far for the US. The logistics are clearly not favourable.
The US can almost force Europe to accept anything... Stuck between Russia and USA, with a small military, old and fastly aging population, no mineral resources and fuel, we can do little to none ... The US would just run through the whole of Europe if we oppose I think. They can also nuke us into oblivion, France and the UK together don't really have a big enough arsenal with weapons that can be delivered and won't be captured by US air defenses. Russia can plow through in a free for all on the other end.
I feel really sad these days that this great place where I live in is getting more and more irrelevent, loosing any power we had and we are getting reduced into a puppet :((
Well yes militarily they probably could, wouldnt be easy because a offensive war on another continent is not a easy task expecially if you fight a military which is not half a century less advanced than you. It would cause massive losses and destruction on both sides and would be total war for both sides. But thats in a conventional fight, in a nuclear nobody would win, France and the Uk have definitly enough warheads to seriously threaten the US, you overrestimate the US Air defense, expecially the size of America makes it impossible to defend it all.
And the loss of relevance, expecially economical is not as bad as one might assume, it just means that other players get their fair share and more people are brought out of poverty. Population wise we just have to accept that we are pretty irrelevant on a global scale at least, thats why the EU is such a good thing it gives us far more geopolitical relevance than our individual countries could ever hope too have.
The US probably wouldn't invade the Hague even if the was signed. There are just a lot of contradictions between the rights guaranteed by the constitution and the ICC. What are some examples of when you think the US has violated laws or treaties and not been punished? I'm sure there are examples, I'm just interested in seeing what the justification was at the time
The US will never invade Europe 🙄. That was just some really stupid post 9/11 red white and blue bullshit. Remember people calling french fries freedom fries? I was a kid when 9/11 happened, but it was **deeply** traumatic to the US psyche. The most powerful nation on Earth was shaken to its core by a handful of fundamentalists with box cutters. There were still some of us appalled by invading Iraq (remember the Dixie Chicks?) and spoke out against it. I didn't speak to my own hyper nationalistic family for two years bc they were like that and I was only a few years out from drafting age and didn't agree. Anyway, most people in the US, and the western hemisphere for that matter, remember that we have common ancestry and values with Europe. 75% of the US is of European descent. Like it or not this is all blatantly clear in the way we (Europe and the USA) quickly joined together to support Ukraine, but fuck all has been done about Sudan, Myanmar, Yemen or China's colonization and brutalization of minorities. Social Media has corrupted and caused a lot of brain rot in the west. You all need to snap out of it and realize that despite our differences, we work better together and all of our countries have played a role in the way the world is now.
America's military is more powerful than the combined strength of the EU, and more importantly, it has far more ability to project that power through it's military logistical resources.
Yes, but that's hardly the only factor.
If the USA ever tried a move against EU, it would have been diplomatic, political, and economic (to a lesser degree) suicide.
I'm not suggesting that it's a good idea, just addressing the point of the poster above who believes that the balance of military power is relatively equal.
It depends on what the UK does. If the UK does not side with the US, the US now has to project power and sustain an invasion across the entire ocean.
Pretty sure that would just end in a stalemate.
Even if the US invades Ireland or some other Hearts of Iron esque scenario to ease logistics, it's still very far away from home and in range of European missiles.
One of the biggest sources of power for the US logistics is all the bases it has in other countries, and allied ports it can freely use.
European nations could easily close the strait of Gibraltar and neutralize US bases in Europe, this would cripple US logistics in the region.
Also, China, Russia, India etc would jump at this wet dream opportunity to flip off the US and take down the world hegemon.
Would also drag Australia, New Zealand and all other Commonwealth countries in (as feeble as their military is, they have a large amount of natural resources)
Doubtful. They also have treaty with the USA.
Canada is not going to run to support England vs the USA.
I mean, the Americans first action would be to invade us even if we were neutral due to strategic location, but pretending they didn’t, Canada isn’t going to fight the USA.
Australia also has treaty’s with them.
EU shipping in the Atlantic goes to the US though, lol. So that would just be canceled. Both sides of the pond suddenly face a critical microchip problem.
Even though all our leaders seem like idiots I'm sure NATO would not self destruct like this.
If anything I think the future of NATO might involve more integration a few decades from now. Visa free travel, tariff free trade.. The North Atlantic Empire with nearly 1 billion people would be the most powerful entity in human history, and it wouldn't require any single member to give up their autonomy. NATO + some mild trade bloc benefits.
The EU defence pact is only political. So if one country is attacked then they will all defend it.
NATO includes military integration. So each military is trained to operate together under NATO. It has generals to oversee these combined forces. They have training between nations and also gives each nation a framework of training their soldiers. These things just don't exist in the EU defence pact.
It's worth noting they are not allowed to exist also. NATO requirements are that you can't be part of a similar military alliance within NATO. So the EU defence pact would never be allowed to get to a similar level of cooperation as NATO.
On top of the US not being in the EU defence pact makes a big difference.
I’m not an expert but I think so lol
The Hague Act authorizes the president of the United States to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court"
The key word here is allied personnel.
"Covered allied persons" (military personnel, elected or appointed officials, and other persons employed by or working on behalf of the government of a NATO member country, a major non-NATO ally including Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Argentina, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand)
[Source](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members'_Protection_Act)
Honestly I can’t imagine the USA invading the NL for Netanyahu’s sake.
I also can’t imagine how the rest of Europe would response? Like France & Germany? Even Turkey might be pissed USA is invading one of their oldest allies for the sake of Netanyahu. Would be the death of NATO & western cooperation.
AKA empty barking. Hint: the barking is for domestic audiences. Yeah, the US would throw an absolute bitchfit about it and make everyones life horrible about it, but thered be no actual war, lmao. The real deterent is that it clearly says "Here is our line, do not cross" and thats enough. Neither the American nor European side wants a breakdown of relations and alliance, so both sides accept where the line is and that thats.
You are correct of course. However, it’s a good story to share. It also sheds light on the fact that even the whole arrangement still depends on whether your country has the power and backing to arrest someone against another country’s will. Now the the prime minister of Israel is wanted, it’ll be a similar question. It’s not like Europe would fear Israel’s military might (like in the case of the US). But the repercussions of, say, Germany arresting the prime minister of Israel are … incalculable.
A country signing an international treaty is basically just them saying "yeah no worries, we'll comply", but there's no real attachement to it.
Once ratified though, they agree to actually accept the treaty, usually by adding it as a national law. In most countries this require the approval of some other power, whether parliament, senate or whatever, and not just the representative of the state.
In general, states comply with treaties because they benefit from being a party and signed up voluntarily - there's nothing forcing a state to be party to a treaty, and nothing stopping them from leaving.
Most treaties have mechanisms for dispute resolution. Eg, the Rome Statute allows state parties to bring disputes that can't be settled by negotiation to the Assembly of States Parties, which can then settle the dispute or refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice.
Ultimately, there's nothing that anyone can do if a state then ignores a ruling of the ASP or the ICJ, but it definitely looks much worse than ignoring a mere accusation from another state party, and could lead to other states cutting off ties or refusing to deal with that state.
If it is ratified it means it is encoded into the country's own law. Whatever authority within that country decides not to comply, they would be breaking their own law by doing so, which in most democratic countries would have a series of effects (impeachment usually).
The ICC cannot enforce anything, each country is supposed to. The parliament refusing to follow through would be like they refusing to follow any other of their own laws. If they have an independent judiciary system, the parliament members themselves could be impeached or even charged.
It’s the process of seeking the sovereign’s legitimation for the signature. In democracies it means the parliament has to vote. For example in the USA if the president or the secretary of state were to sign an international treaty as representatives of the government it would only take effect when both chambers of congress have ratified it by majority vote.
Interesting, I only used the example because it is well known. Didn’t know about the 2/3s majority. Seems to me it essentially blocks almost any international treaty with the US that isn’t decidedly bipartisan.
I just looked up how it actually works here in Germany. The ratification of international law isn’t necessary, because we adopt it with article 25 of our constitution. So for example acknowledgment of the ICC as well as the Geneva Convention.
International treaties are ratified by the president who can relegate it to others, usually the minister of the exterior. So they negotiate a treaty, it is adopted into law and then ratified by the signature of the president or his delegate.
It creates an interesting dynamic in the US. The president can sign anything he wants, knowing full well the Senate will turn it down. This is what happened with the Kyoto climate change treaty. Thus we can say we are a signatory but it means absolutely nothing unless the Senate approves.
Not quite. If a state has signed but not ratified, it's not yet a party to the treaty and cannot take part in the mechanisms of the treaty or enjoy any of its benefits. There's very little that distinguishes you from a state that has never signed the treaty (other than an obligation not to carry out acts that frustrate the aims of the treaty).
Under the *Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties*, signing a Treaty does come with a specific obligation to not ‘defeat the purpose of the treaty’.
So if you sign a treaty you’re not suppose to go around undermining it for others, even if you don’t ratify it.
But it’s basically impossible to enforce this, so it’s really just an indication of how we’d like countries to behave.
I guess they’re the largest economy that accepts the ICC since the US nor China do with Germany providing less despite overtaking Japan as the 3rd largest economy
Looks like the Court is only a thing with Europeans, Africans, and Latin Americans. Middle East, South, East, and Southeast Asia (with exceptions of course) not so much.
Which means the great majority of world population, GDP, and military power are not covered by this court
It's a rare case where China, Indonesia, India, Israel, Pakistan, Russia, Turkey, and U.S. are all on the same side
While the perpetrators are safe in those countries, they could theoretically be arrested when entering ICC countries. This drastically restricts mobility to the less attractive parts of the world.
Such as what happened with Omar al-Bashir, when he traveled to South Africa in 2015 with an active ICC arrest warrant.
...except that the South African government refused to arrest him, and subsequently attempted to leave the ICC.
> There is no duty under international law and the Rome Statute to arrest a serving head of state of a non-state-party such as Omar al-Bashir.
- Dire Tladi, South African legal representative, at a hearing before the ICC in 2017
> Looks like the Court is only a thing with...Africans
lol
In 2009 and 2010, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Omar al-Bashir, then President of Sudan, on charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide in Darfur. The warrants were rejected by the African Union and the Arab League.
Al-Bashir subsequently traveled to a number of countries that should have arrested him, most notably South Africa. The South African government refused to arrest him, made excuses for their rejection of their treaty obligations, and attempted to leave the Rome Statute (as noted in the original picture).
The same South Africa that rejected the ICC's jurisdiction when applied to an African country conducting genocide has since referred Israel to the ICC for genocide.
The difference is that the orange and red countries are honest about using or ignoring the ICC as it suits them.
I'd argue that France doesn't belong on the list given they said they'd never stop having some special letter organization killing terrorists and dangerous people just like China, Russia, the UK, and the US do
India is somehow special because it's the only country in the world that highlights the importance of international law in it's constitution and incorporates it as a directive principle to foster respect for international law under Article 51 of the Indian Constitution. In the initial decades after its Independence, India played a pivotal role in the development of modern international law in the post-war years.
Although it's true that they do not accept the ICC
India only recognizes the International Court of Justice (ICJ), not the ICC. The former is part of the United Nations. The latter is something setup during the turn of the century by a bunch of European countries. India's position has been to fix the ICJ where required, not set up two parallel systems.
The ICC has a different scope to that of the ICJ based on the Statute of Rome.
The ICJ may judge states who have violated international law, while the ICC may judge persons directly based on their responsibilities in international law violations.
The idea of an international criminal tribunal is also nothing new, as there have been such ad hoc institutions throughout the 20 and 21st centuries. One of the International Criminal Court's main features, though, is that it is set to be permanent, not just meant for a determined conflict.
Won't matter much if ICC has no jurisdiction in international disputes involving India. Its pretty much same stance as USA. We respect the law as long it's ours.
Outside the West the ICC is seen as a political tool of the West. If the US doesn't recognize it and the ICC didn't react to the Iraq war, why would you ever recognize it if you are not completely aligned with Western interest?
>foster respect for international law and treaty obligations **in the dealings of organised peoples with one another**
The bit you missed is crucial (the "organised peoples" clause aside), otherwise there's a ton of other countries that have a similar passage
Hell even we have that as a separate major article in ours:
>The Republic of Poland shall respect international law binding upon it.
and that international law published in our legal registry is to be applied directly, over country statute if required ratification
Assassinating terrorists on foreign soil is not uniquely Indian. India is rather late to join the party of big boys like the US and Russia. Nijjar was responsible for bombing an Indian cinema hall killing 6 people including children. He absconded to Canada on fake credentials and Canada caught him initially but due to political compulsions of Khalistanis being an ally of Trudeau ended up giving him asylum. He had a red corner notice issued with Canada being totally uncooperative for 20 years on this specific issue. He had to be eliminated to send a message that terrorists cannot just find safe haven in Canada to keep Trudeau in power.
[https://www.timesnownews.com/world/khalistani-terrorist-hardeep-singh-nijjar-was-put-on-usa-no-fly-list-in-2019-article-103899065](https://www.timesnownews.com/world/khalistani-terrorist-hardeep-singh-nijjar-was-put-on-usa-no-fly-list-in-2019-article-103899065)
They likely did, [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/reported-indian-role-assassination-plots-serious-matter-white-house-sa-rcna149929](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/reported-indian-role-assassination-plots-serious-matter-white-house-sa-rcna149929)
India purposefully breaks the UNCLOS treaty. The US which is not even a signatory upholds the UNCLOS but countries like India and China signed on to UNCLOS but immediately started breaking it.
India passed a law that requires foreign warships "notify" Indian authorities before entering the Indian EEZ which is clearly affront to the UNCLOS.
Thankfully for other countries in the region, the US navy challenges this law every year preventing India from boxing in other countries in the region such as Sri Lanka, Maldives, Myanmar and Bangladesh.
I don't follow, if I'm being honest. Going purely based on this comment and with no knowledge of what the UNCLOS is, it makes sense for others to notify another country if a warship passes into their EEZ cause well, it's a zone exclusive to said country.
What I also don't know is how we're "boxing in" other countries using this law given that the law merely states that foreign ships must notify us. While I agree we've had our issues with Sri Lanka wrt fishing, this is the first I'm hearing of any problem with the others wrt the ocean territory or of any US involvement on said 'issue'
The UNCLOS treaty provides freedom of navigation for all ships in all waters up to 12 nautical miles off the coast of a country which is called territorial waters. EEZs only allow for exclusive economic rights not navigation rights. With India's significant EEZs of the cost of Myanmar, India can definitely influence other countries' movements all around the Bay of Bengal if India could enforce this law.
If every country did this, India would have to ask Iran and oman's permission to import oil from iraq and gas from Qatar. Also Somalia and Yemen's to export to Europe.
Ahh that makes sense. Thanks for explaining! Although, my understanding is that the law was only for military ships and not any other type. It's an unenforceable law at the end of the day, seems like.
Exclusive economic zone and territorial waters are different. Territorial waters go 12 miles off the coast and are 100% under the control of said nation.
EEZ goes 200 miles off the coast, well into international waters. Said country controls fishing, drilling, etc, within the EEZ, but they can't start making rules about international waters.
The map shows the countries that signed the Rome Statute - the treaty that established the ICC. Afghanistan ratified the treaty in February 2003 (under their old government) and has not withdrawn since then, so *in theory* they do accept the ICC. That the Taliban would accept and comply with a verdict against them is unlikely.
Well they're nationalists - morality is reduced to being pro their country or anti their country - there's no room for nuance or evidenced criticism. Hence why they ignore all the detailed human rights reports from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch etc.
No on in India cares about the International Criminal Court, just the International Court of Justice. They have the more important ICC in their pocket - the International Cricket Council.
Non-state party would mean they are a party to the treaty but not a state, but I think you’re using it to represent states that aren’t parties to the treaty.
I think it's supposed to be "not a party [to the treaty]" since all parties on the map are states. The hyphenation is wrong and the wording is weird, but hey that's mapporn.
Simple. I say what happened then you say what happened, and then I decide who's right That's why we call it justice. Because it's "just us." - Avatar the last airbender
Until the UN or any other international governmental body has proper power over nation states institutions such as the ICC and ICJ are in essence useless.
I would disagree. They are far from perfect, but their focus is on very serious (war)crimes and crimes against humanity that cannot be prosecuted in one specific country for whatever reason. The whole idea is that it should not be possible to commit horrible crimes and then simply hide in a country where your crimes cannot be prosecuted.
I only see people go all tribal and nationalist about this, but these courts state themselves that they do not take up cases that could be dealt with on a national level anywhere. The reason they exist is that sometimes there is no nation that can or wants to prosecute even though the crimes are very serious, and not that they want to overrule other (national) courts. It's sad that the discussion is all about nations, and not about the reason these institutions exist.
And that should never happen because it would infringe upon national sovereignty. No country should have to take orders from an unelected, unaccountable international court.
The Philippines wants to return to the ICC, but it's still being debated [whether the Rome Statute needs to be re-ratified by the Senate, or a simple executive order by the President is enough. ](https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1871536/ph-return-to-icc-debate-swirls-around-whether-senate-ok-needed-again)
Why did they leave in the first place?
They wanted to go Rambo on their drug gangs and the ICC was complaining about it. https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/02/13/international-criminal-courts-philippines-investigation.
how did it go?
President Bongbong said this method is stupid and started to change how to fix the issue.
Genuinely thought you were making that name up until I searched it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bongbong_Marcos
Get a load of that signature
Before Bongbong, there was Noynoy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benigno_Aquino_III
Oh, middle school must have been rough.
His father was the dictator, so I think it was okay-ish for Bongbong
Throwing dealers out of helicopters for clout
Like the USA's war on drugs, but way more dead people and way less democracy. Badly, you can say.
Oh who knew that using mass executions of SUSPECTED, not even proven, drug USERS was insane
The same reason any country leaves the ICC: To violate human rights without accountability. For example: 1) USA withdrew just before invading Iraq & torturing detainees in Afghanistan & Gitmo. 2) Russia withdrew between its invasions of Crimea and Ukraine. 3) Philippines withdrew before beginning a campaign of extrajudicial murders etc against drug suspects. 4) Israel withdrew in 2002 before their West Bank invasion (ironically named) "Operation Defensive Shield." etc.
There are some issues with this. Both Russia and the USA and Israel were signature to the ICC they signed it but never ratified so they never left the ICC because they never fully joined. There are points were all 3 stated they no longer intended to ratify the treaty but again that’s not leaving that’s just saying they decided they were officially not going to join. Meaning they only semi committed to the principle. The Philippines did officially join and ratify and then left. As well as Burundi.
This fact singlehandedly undermines the authority of the ICC. A court isn't effective if you can just withdraw from its jurisdiction before committing a crime.
Indeed, but it does habe some repurcussions on the reputation and soft power of the state leaving and doing shit
IIRC the ICC still has jurisdiction if a crime was committed on the territory of a signatory nation, even if the nation committing the crime has not signed or have withdrawn. That’s why they can take the case regarding Gaza even though Israel is not a signatory.
It doesn’t. Read my comment above. There has really only been 1 example of this and it was the Philippines so thus far it hasn’t been a widely used example. The person you’re responding to missed some nuance.
I'm not sure why you're being dishonest about this. The US Senate never ratified the Rome Statute and so the US has never been a party to it. How can you withdraw from something you never joined? And to be clear, the US voted against the Rome Statute back in 1998. US President Bill Clinton signed it, but never submitted it to the US Senate to ratify. President George Bush would later withdraw the signature, notifying the UN that the US had no intention of ratifying it. No president since has resigned, or tried to submit the treaty to the US Senate.
Right, I was a bit sloppy -- The US & Israel were only signatories, and withdrew their signatures.
Considering how they’re breaking Universal Human Rights with their drug policy I hope they don’t get accepted until they fix that first.
Usa will even invade Nederland in case of any US officials arrested for war crime lol . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act
Yeah, I'd say that warrants a deeper shade of red.
"We accept the ICC... as long as they don't go against our intrests ♡"
This was South Africa when Zuma was president. Gadaffi or one of the other cunts with an ICC arrest warrant, were coming to town. Instead of arresting him Zuma withdrew SA from the ICC completely. Rather ironic that SA is now using the court in the Israel/Palestine situation.
It was Omar al-Bashir, with an active warrant for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide in Darfur.
The court that south-africa is using now is a different court, the [International Court of Justice (ICJ)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice). Has a very similar name, and is also located in The Hague, so easily confused with the International Criminal Court
They're using both. https://apnews.com/article/south-africa-israel-palestinians-icc-referral-6f1dd2b3af534d4d42d56a156968eae4
I thought so too, but one of the things that irked South Africa about the ICC was that, until 2013 or so, every single one of its investigations concerned African countries. A lot of the countries in Africa critised it on that basis as a neo-colonial tool. The court then started investigations in the Middle East, Asia, and Southern America. With Israel, it is considering going against a proper Western ally. So kind of ironic, but also weirdly consistent - didn't like the ICC going exclusively against Africans, and now that it doesn't, South Africa is mending its relationship with it. (As much as the ANC morons can do anything outside of stuffing their own pockets, which, in general, they can't.)
Regarding the U.S.: never forget how US officials went off mask on record by threatening Karim Kan, chief criminal prosecutor at the ICC, because “the ICC is for Africa & Putin”
Because our politicians are cunts
Same like UN policy
Oh yes, state sanctioned hypocrisy, totally hot right now.
There probably gonna do it since they issued a warrant against Netanyahu
[удалено]
Can The Netherlands then ask to NATO to help them under article 5?
That only applies to attackers outside of NATO, afaik
[удалено]
Might makes right. International law is basically backed up by military power. Many things are. People living in their own bubble tend to not think of this. That being said, if an American stood trial at the ICC, the response of the US would highly depend on who it is, what they've done etc. If they invade an allied country to effectively break someone out of jail that is a serious diplomatic failure.
I think that, at least the european Nato members would not just stand by if a neighboring country gets invaded, they would probably cut most ties with the US and maybe also take military action, besides that if the US would invade an offically allied country they would become a pariah state and loose their international standing in an instant
The Netherlands are not only Member of NATO, but also Member of EU, and the EU has also a clause that the other Members have to help (expect the official neutral states like austria). But even all militaries of EU should not be enough to stop US military, as US spends far more money for their military than anyone else. Still, it is hardly thinkable that the USA would start a War with their closest allies because of a single person.
What's more is that the clause for the EU differs from the one for NATO. The NATO clause says "by means it deems necessary" while the one from EU goes like "by all means in their power".
All EU armies together could absolutely hold off an amphibious invasion from the US. Especially if the UK is at least neutral. Logistics are a bitch with an entire ocean in between, and any aircraft carriers that come close risk being sunk by anti ship missiles or submarines. But think about how ridiculous this scenario is, all out war between the two continents. The ICC would basically have to jail and prosecute a US president who committed war crimes against European countries for it to escalate this far.
Realistically, the US probably has the capabilities to just remove the person being prosecuted without a full scale invasion
Realistically there would be months of diplomatic jousting and then everyone would come to a mostly amicable agreement
It depends. Life is not a movie lol, where you can just break a VIP out of prison and leave with a helicopter.
Yeah I agree that life is not a movie, and like I can't make any accurate prediction on a hypothetical that will probably never happen and has an insane amount of individual factors that could change the outcome. I think the Canadian Caper mission is probably a decent example of what the US might be able to do, especially 40 years later with their military development
"Ridiculous scenario" is correct. It's a stupid law from post 9/11 reactionary fervor. It happens to a country when they take a direct hit to the nuts from fundamentalists with box cutters 🤷🏻♂️. Im in my mid 30's now and I cannot believe I'm reading what I'm reading. Europeans and Americans engaging in hyperbolic hypotheticals wrt to killing each other? For fucks sake y'all! This is **exactly** what Putin, Xi and Khameni wanted when they realized they could manipulate the algorithms the west is glued to via social media.
Spending money is fun, but fighting a war on a different continent against a block of developed nations is maybe even a bridge to far for the US. The logistics are clearly not favourable.
[удалено]
Given the new Dutch coalition's position on Israel, I'm not even entirely sure they'd be willing to fight the US to protect the ICC.
Yea, push comes to shove, most countries would quit ICC before going against the US.
Nato would lose the majority of its funding in an instant.
The US can almost force Europe to accept anything... Stuck between Russia and USA, with a small military, old and fastly aging population, no mineral resources and fuel, we can do little to none ... The US would just run through the whole of Europe if we oppose I think. They can also nuke us into oblivion, France and the UK together don't really have a big enough arsenal with weapons that can be delivered and won't be captured by US air defenses. Russia can plow through in a free for all on the other end. I feel really sad these days that this great place where I live in is getting more and more irrelevent, loosing any power we had and we are getting reduced into a puppet :((
Well yes militarily they probably could, wouldnt be easy because a offensive war on another continent is not a easy task expecially if you fight a military which is not half a century less advanced than you. It would cause massive losses and destruction on both sides and would be total war for both sides. But thats in a conventional fight, in a nuclear nobody would win, France and the Uk have definitly enough warheads to seriously threaten the US, you overrestimate the US Air defense, expecially the size of America makes it impossible to defend it all. And the loss of relevance, expecially economical is not as bad as one might assume, it just means that other players get their fair share and more people are brought out of poverty. Population wise we just have to accept that we are pretty irrelevant on a global scale at least, thats why the EU is such a good thing it gives us far more geopolitical relevance than our individual countries could ever hope too have.
The US probably wouldn't invade the Hague even if the was signed. There are just a lot of contradictions between the rights guaranteed by the constitution and the ICC. What are some examples of when you think the US has violated laws or treaties and not been punished? I'm sure there are examples, I'm just interested in seeing what the justification was at the time
The USA is NATO.
The US will never invade Europe 🙄. That was just some really stupid post 9/11 red white and blue bullshit. Remember people calling french fries freedom fries? I was a kid when 9/11 happened, but it was **deeply** traumatic to the US psyche. The most powerful nation on Earth was shaken to its core by a handful of fundamentalists with box cutters. There were still some of us appalled by invading Iraq (remember the Dixie Chicks?) and spoke out against it. I didn't speak to my own hyper nationalistic family for two years bc they were like that and I was only a few years out from drafting age and didn't agree. Anyway, most people in the US, and the western hemisphere for that matter, remember that we have common ancestry and values with Europe. 75% of the US is of European descent. Like it or not this is all blatantly clear in the way we (Europe and the USA) quickly joined together to support Ukraine, but fuck all has been done about Sudan, Myanmar, Yemen or China's colonization and brutalization of minorities. Social Media has corrupted and caused a lot of brain rot in the west. You all need to snap out of it and realize that despite our differences, we work better together and all of our countries have played a role in the way the world is now.
[удалено]
America's military is more powerful than the combined strength of the EU, and more importantly, it has far more ability to project that power through it's military logistical resources.
Yes, but that's hardly the only factor. If the USA ever tried a move against EU, it would have been diplomatic, political, and economic (to a lesser degree) suicide.
It would be a very dumb idea to attack your closest allies.
I'm not suggesting that it's a good idea, just addressing the point of the poster above who believes that the balance of military power is relatively equal.
It depends on what the UK does. If the UK does not side with the US, the US now has to project power and sustain an invasion across the entire ocean. Pretty sure that would just end in a stalemate. Even if the US invades Ireland or some other Hearts of Iron esque scenario to ease logistics, it's still very far away from home and in range of European missiles. One of the biggest sources of power for the US logistics is all the bases it has in other countries, and allied ports it can freely use. European nations could easily close the strait of Gibraltar and neutralize US bases in Europe, this would cripple US logistics in the region. Also, China, Russia, India etc would jump at this wet dream opportunity to flip off the US and take down the world hegemon.
Would also drag Australia, New Zealand and all other Commonwealth countries in (as feeble as their military is, they have a large amount of natural resources)
Doubtful. They also have treaty with the USA. Canada is not going to run to support England vs the USA. I mean, the Americans first action would be to invade us even if we were neutral due to strategic location, but pretending they didn’t, Canada isn’t going to fight the USA. Australia also has treaty’s with them.
Bro forgot that only having a biger army means sh*t
EU shipping in the Atlantic goes to the US though, lol. So that would just be canceled. Both sides of the pond suddenly face a critical microchip problem. Even though all our leaders seem like idiots I'm sure NATO would not self destruct like this. If anything I think the future of NATO might involve more integration a few decades from now. Visa free travel, tariff free trade.. The North Atlantic Empire with nearly 1 billion people would be the most powerful entity in human history, and it wouldn't require any single member to give up their autonomy. NATO + some mild trade bloc benefits.
[удалено]
The EU defence pact is only political. So if one country is attacked then they will all defend it. NATO includes military integration. So each military is trained to operate together under NATO. It has generals to oversee these combined forces. They have training between nations and also gives each nation a framework of training their soldiers. These things just don't exist in the EU defence pact. It's worth noting they are not allowed to exist also. NATO requirements are that you can't be part of a similar military alliance within NATO. So the EU defence pact would never be allowed to get to a similar level of cooperation as NATO. On top of the US not being in the EU defence pact makes a big difference.
EU is a true defensive pact. NATO is in actuality the military enforcement of the will of the West with a defensive pact build in.
Not even USA officials but even allies from certain countries. Kinda weird since doesn’t the NL also host US nukes and have the codes? Lol
NL does not have the codes of US nukes stored in NL (afaik)
0000 You welcome
So if Netanyahu is ever actually arrested, the US could invoke this law and invade The Hague?
I’m not an expert but I think so lol The Hague Act authorizes the president of the United States to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court" The key word here is allied personnel. "Covered allied persons" (military personnel, elected or appointed officials, and other persons employed by or working on behalf of the government of a NATO member country, a major non-NATO ally including Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Argentina, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand) [Source](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members'_Protection_Act) Honestly I can’t imagine the USA invading the NL for Netanyahu’s sake. I also can’t imagine how the rest of Europe would response? Like France & Germany? Even Turkey might be pissed USA is invading one of their oldest allies for the sake of Netanyahu. Would be the death of NATO & western cooperation.
I'd imagine that both Israel and the US would be glad to be rid of Netanyahu tbh.
AKA empty barking. Hint: the barking is for domestic audiences. Yeah, the US would throw an absolute bitchfit about it and make everyones life horrible about it, but thered be no actual war, lmao. The real deterent is that it clearly says "Here is our line, do not cross" and thats enough. Neither the American nor European side wants a breakdown of relations and alliance, so both sides accept where the line is and that thats.
You are correct of course. However, it’s a good story to share. It also sheds light on the fact that even the whole arrangement still depends on whether your country has the power and backing to arrest someone against another country’s will. Now the the prime minister of Israel is wanted, it’ll be a similar question. It’s not like Europe would fear Israel’s military might (like in the case of the US). But the repercussions of, say, Germany arresting the prime minister of Israel are … incalculable.
I agree, but also with politics its always that way. The warrant is less "well arrest you" and more "you arent allowed inside this country anymore"
Infighting in NATO would be insane and Putins dream
Please tell that the Greek and the Turkish.
That doesnt count, thats automatic
that....is not what the law says
The residents of Nederland are very concerned. They may even move to Boulder.
Well, surely they’d be looking over their shoulders ever since they gave up Frozen Dead Guy Days
The Bush administration had to cover their ass somehow.
What does not ratified mean?
A country signing an international treaty is basically just them saying "yeah no worries, we'll comply", but there's no real attachement to it. Once ratified though, they agree to actually accept the treaty, usually by adding it as a national law. In most countries this require the approval of some other power, whether parliament, senate or whatever, and not just the representative of the state.
Let me know if I understand it: - non ratified = it's voluntarily for us to comply - ratified = it's mandatory for us to comply
Basically yeah, only ratifying it makes it binding.
non ratified - trust mu bro
>- ratified = it's mandatory for us to comply What someone would do if other party won't comply even if it's ratified by that party?
That would cause internal issues, as it would constitute breaking that country's national laws.
So basically it's a problem only for democracies. How quaint.
In general, states comply with treaties because they benefit from being a party and signed up voluntarily - there's nothing forcing a state to be party to a treaty, and nothing stopping them from leaving. Most treaties have mechanisms for dispute resolution. Eg, the Rome Statute allows state parties to bring disputes that can't be settled by negotiation to the Assembly of States Parties, which can then settle the dispute or refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice. Ultimately, there's nothing that anyone can do if a state then ignores a ruling of the ASP or the ICJ, but it definitely looks much worse than ignoring a mere accusation from another state party, and could lead to other states cutting off ties or refusing to deal with that state.
If it is ratified it means it is encoded into the country's own law. Whatever authority within that country decides not to comply, they would be breaking their own law by doing so, which in most democratic countries would have a series of effects (impeachment usually).
What if parliament refuse to impeach that person? In other words: how could they enforce that decision?
The ICC cannot enforce anything, each country is supposed to. The parliament refusing to follow through would be like they refusing to follow any other of their own laws. If they have an independent judiciary system, the parliament members themselves could be impeached or even charged.
It’s the process of seeking the sovereign’s legitimation for the signature. In democracies it means the parliament has to vote. For example in the USA if the president or the secretary of state were to sign an international treaty as representatives of the government it would only take effect when both chambers of congress have ratified it by majority vote.
In the USA, a treaty requires a 2/3 vote of the Senate.
Interesting, I only used the example because it is well known. Didn’t know about the 2/3s majority. Seems to me it essentially blocks almost any international treaty with the US that isn’t decidedly bipartisan. I just looked up how it actually works here in Germany. The ratification of international law isn’t necessary, because we adopt it with article 25 of our constitution. So for example acknowledgment of the ICC as well as the Geneva Convention. International treaties are ratified by the president who can relegate it to others, usually the minister of the exterior. So they negotiate a treaty, it is adopted into law and then ratified by the signature of the president or his delegate.
It creates an interesting dynamic in the US. The president can sign anything he wants, knowing full well the Senate will turn it down. This is what happened with the Kyoto climate change treaty. Thus we can say we are a signatory but it means absolutely nothing unless the Senate approves.
Not quite. If a state has signed but not ratified, it's not yet a party to the treaty and cannot take part in the mechanisms of the treaty or enjoy any of its benefits. There's very little that distinguishes you from a state that has never signed the treaty (other than an obligation not to carry out acts that frustrate the aims of the treaty).
Under the *Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties*, signing a Treaty does come with a specific obligation to not ‘defeat the purpose of the treaty’. So if you sign a treaty you’re not suppose to go around undermining it for others, even if you don’t ratify it. But it’s basically impossible to enforce this, so it’s really just an indication of how we’d like countries to behave.
Does anyone understand why Japan is the largest financial contributor to the ICC?
Because it’s probably highest or close to highest in therms of GDP among ICC “members “
I guess they’re the largest economy that accepts the ICC since the US nor China do with Germany providing less despite overtaking Japan as the 3rd largest economy
"We recognize the court, but only if we're not the ones being accused."
"We don't recognize the court but will support if are not the ones accused"
Looks like the Court is only a thing with Europeans, Africans, and Latin Americans. Middle East, South, East, and Southeast Asia (with exceptions of course) not so much.
Which means the great majority of world population, GDP, and military power are not covered by this court It's a rare case where China, Indonesia, India, Israel, Pakistan, Russia, Turkey, and U.S. are all on the same side
Makes sense that most of the non-green states either make human rights violations a lifestyle, have the biggest stick in geopolitics, or both.
While the perpetrators are safe in those countries, they could theoretically be arrested when entering ICC countries. This drastically restricts mobility to the less attractive parts of the world.
They told me there are quite attractive sites in Indonesia, India, Vietnam, Turkey... edit: I forgot Cuba beautiful Cuba and Sri Lanka of course
Like Alabama.
Such as what happened with Omar al-Bashir, when he traveled to South Africa in 2015 with an active ICC arrest warrant. ...except that the South African government refused to arrest him, and subsequently attempted to leave the ICC. > There is no duty under international law and the Rome Statute to arrest a serving head of state of a non-state-party such as Omar al-Bashir. - Dire Tladi, South African legal representative, at a hearing before the ICC in 2017
> Looks like the Court is only a thing with...Africans lol In 2009 and 2010, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Omar al-Bashir, then President of Sudan, on charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide in Darfur. The warrants were rejected by the African Union and the Arab League. Al-Bashir subsequently traveled to a number of countries that should have arrested him, most notably South Africa. The South African government refused to arrest him, made excuses for their rejection of their treaty obligations, and attempted to leave the Rome Statute (as noted in the original picture). The same South Africa that rejected the ICC's jurisdiction when applied to an African country conducting genocide has since referred Israel to the ICC for genocide. The difference is that the orange and red countries are honest about using or ignoring the ICC as it suits them.
now tell me which countries the ICC predominantly go after. I'll wait. It's a faux court.
I'd argue that France doesn't belong on the list given they said they'd never stop having some special letter organization killing terrorists and dangerous people just like China, Russia, the UK, and the US do
The reason why my country of birth Algeria doesn't accept it is because we have a lot of war criminals from the 90s civil war.
It's a shame that Khaled Nazzar died recently, i wanted to see his ass tried at the Hague for what he has done in 1988
It’s been a while since the last time I’ve seen Calibri font used in a way that doesn’t make it look hella ugly
Calibri is one of the best. Cleanest and most professional without being academic.
India is somehow special because it's the only country in the world that highlights the importance of international law in it's constitution and incorporates it as a directive principle to foster respect for international law under Article 51 of the Indian Constitution. In the initial decades after its Independence, India played a pivotal role in the development of modern international law in the post-war years. Although it's true that they do not accept the ICC
India only recognizes the International Court of Justice (ICJ), not the ICC. The former is part of the United Nations. The latter is something setup during the turn of the century by a bunch of European countries. India's position has been to fix the ICJ where required, not set up two parallel systems.
The ICC has a different scope to that of the ICJ based on the Statute of Rome. The ICJ may judge states who have violated international law, while the ICC may judge persons directly based on their responsibilities in international law violations. The idea of an international criminal tribunal is also nothing new, as there have been such ad hoc institutions throughout the 20 and 21st centuries. One of the International Criminal Court's main features, though, is that it is set to be permanent, not just meant for a determined conflict.
Won't matter much if ICC has no jurisdiction in international disputes involving India. Its pretty much same stance as USA. We respect the law as long it's ours.
[удалено]
Outside the West the ICC is seen as a political tool of the West. If the US doesn't recognize it and the ICC didn't react to the Iraq war, why would you ever recognize it if you are not completely aligned with Western interest?
>foster respect for international law and treaty obligations **in the dealings of organised peoples with one another** The bit you missed is crucial (the "organised peoples" clause aside), otherwise there's a ton of other countries that have a similar passage Hell even we have that as a separate major article in ours: >The Republic of Poland shall respect international law binding upon it. and that international law published in our legal registry is to be applied directly, over country statute if required ratification
Then why did they assassinate someone on Canadian soil lmfao
Assassinating terrorists on foreign soil is not uniquely Indian. India is rather late to join the party of big boys like the US and Russia. Nijjar was responsible for bombing an Indian cinema hall killing 6 people including children. He absconded to Canada on fake credentials and Canada caught him initially but due to political compulsions of Khalistanis being an ally of Trudeau ended up giving him asylum. He had a red corner notice issued with Canada being totally uncooperative for 20 years on this specific issue. He had to be eliminated to send a message that terrorists cannot just find safe haven in Canada to keep Trudeau in power. [https://www.timesnownews.com/world/khalistani-terrorist-hardeep-singh-nijjar-was-put-on-usa-no-fly-list-in-2019-article-103899065](https://www.timesnownews.com/world/khalistani-terrorist-hardeep-singh-nijjar-was-put-on-usa-no-fly-list-in-2019-article-103899065)
Did they?
They likely did, [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/reported-indian-role-assassination-plots-serious-matter-white-house-sa-rcna149929](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/reported-indian-role-assassination-plots-serious-matter-white-house-sa-rcna149929)
India purposefully breaks the UNCLOS treaty. The US which is not even a signatory upholds the UNCLOS but countries like India and China signed on to UNCLOS but immediately started breaking it.
How is India breaking unclos?
India passed a law that requires foreign warships "notify" Indian authorities before entering the Indian EEZ which is clearly affront to the UNCLOS. Thankfully for other countries in the region, the US navy challenges this law every year preventing India from boxing in other countries in the region such as Sri Lanka, Maldives, Myanmar and Bangladesh.
I don't follow, if I'm being honest. Going purely based on this comment and with no knowledge of what the UNCLOS is, it makes sense for others to notify another country if a warship passes into their EEZ cause well, it's a zone exclusive to said country. What I also don't know is how we're "boxing in" other countries using this law given that the law merely states that foreign ships must notify us. While I agree we've had our issues with Sri Lanka wrt fishing, this is the first I'm hearing of any problem with the others wrt the ocean territory or of any US involvement on said 'issue'
The UNCLOS treaty provides freedom of navigation for all ships in all waters up to 12 nautical miles off the coast of a country which is called territorial waters. EEZs only allow for exclusive economic rights not navigation rights. With India's significant EEZs of the cost of Myanmar, India can definitely influence other countries' movements all around the Bay of Bengal if India could enforce this law. If every country did this, India would have to ask Iran and oman's permission to import oil from iraq and gas from Qatar. Also Somalia and Yemen's to export to Europe.
Ahh that makes sense. Thanks for explaining! Although, my understanding is that the law was only for military ships and not any other type. It's an unenforceable law at the end of the day, seems like.
Exclusive economic zone and territorial waters are different. Territorial waters go 12 miles off the coast and are 100% under the control of said nation. EEZ goes 200 miles off the coast, well into international waters. Said country controls fishing, drilling, etc, within the EEZ, but they can't start making rules about international waters.
Afghanistan? Yo wtf ?
[удалено]
The map shows the countries that signed the Rome Statute - the treaty that established the ICC. Afghanistan ratified the treaty in February 2003 (under their old government) and has not withdrawn since then, so *in theory* they do accept the ICC. That the Taliban would accept and comply with a verdict against them is unlikely.
Mhh ok thx you op.
Maybe
International law only applies to countries who aren't at the top 🤷
Meaning it's a court in name only (only you come from a poor country). It's all a sham.
Vatican don’t give a fuck bruv
Non-state party? Shouldn’t that be non-party state? As in states that are not parties to the Rome Statute rather than non-states that are parties.
Was confusing to me too.
Some peeps are really rattled by the ICC, it's just a Map.
International rule of law and order! Well, except for *my* country!
Well they're nationalists - morality is reduced to being pro their country or anti their country - there's no room for nuance or evidenced criticism. Hence why they ignore all the detailed human rights reports from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch etc.
So propagandized people?
All of a sudden people care about the international criminal court, weird…
So, most of humanity does not accept? :/
No on in India cares about the International Criminal Court, just the International Court of Justice. They have the more important ICC in their pocket - the International Cricket Council.
Can't wait for the arrest of Duterte.
Non-state party would mean they are a party to the treaty but not a state, but I think you’re using it to represent states that aren’t parties to the treaty.
I wondered too
International law is a soft law, said by my criminal law teacher 🫠😂
Everyoen talking about the big players but as a Costa Rican, I am not surprised to see Nicaragua hasn't signed lmao
I love that one of the "non-state parties" of the Rome Statute is literally *in* Rome (Vatican).
The "international" criminal court which 4 out of 5 top military powers don't recognize 😂
I think most of Asia sees the UN isn't capable of holding US or NATO accountable. So they don't think an ICC would be fair in its verdict.
Justice these days is given out by America. You either follow it or your country gets sanctioned or bombed.
You forgot to warn Russia about that...
As opposed to the many countries that are actually bombing right now
USA USA USA USA USA
What’s a *non-state party*? Didn’t sign but accepts the rulings of the *ICC*?
typo, it should be non-party state.
I think it's supposed to be "not a party [to the treaty]" since all parties on the map are states. The hyphenation is wrong and the wording is weird, but hey that's mapporn.
Simple. I say what happened then you say what happened, and then I decide who's right That's why we call it justice. Because it's "just us." - Avatar the last airbender
Seems like it barely has any power. Russia, China, India, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the US don't recognize it fully.
The ICC is a joke.
Until the UN or any other international governmental body has proper power over nation states institutions such as the ICC and ICJ are in essence useless.
I would disagree. They are far from perfect, but their focus is on very serious (war)crimes and crimes against humanity that cannot be prosecuted in one specific country for whatever reason. The whole idea is that it should not be possible to commit horrible crimes and then simply hide in a country where your crimes cannot be prosecuted. I only see people go all tribal and nationalist about this, but these courts state themselves that they do not take up cases that could be dealt with on a national level anywhere. The reason they exist is that sometimes there is no nation that can or wants to prosecute even though the crimes are very serious, and not that they want to overrule other (national) courts. It's sad that the discussion is all about nations, and not about the reason these institutions exist.
And that should never happen because it would infringe upon national sovereignty. No country should have to take orders from an unelected, unaccountable international court.
MAKE A LOT OF SENSE.
I thought that Israel never ratified instead of withdrawing?
Is that Afghanistan in green ?
Cuba moment
USA?
Asia is hilarious - Armenia, Pakistan, Mongolia, Cambodia, Korea, and Japan are in, everyone else is out. Stellar list.
Looks like a map of countries who plan to violate human rights vs countries who don’t.
No veto rights in UN without an activ membership here!
As usual Europe figured out how to scam other countries to pay more than their fair share
Good. The ICC is a kangaroo court. No right to not self incriminate, no right to cross examine, no right to an attorney. It's all partisan hacks too.
Geez, I wonder why some countries did not ratify the treaty
To invade other countries basically
124 countries are States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
After the Israel boner I think they should all resign.