ICC Judge Guillou loses all US IT accounts after MAGA sanctions [FR]

The ICC was born out of the Rome Statute, signed in 2002 [1].

It reflects the optimism of the 1990s’ newly unipolar world, one in which a rules-based international order —guaranteed by the United States—would reign supreme. That world started falling apart after 9/11 (specifically, the Bush administration’s response to it). It shattered with Xi pressing into the South China Sea and Russia annexing Crimea, though it wasn’t obvious it was lost until Putin blew into Ukraine and Trump 47.

Washington shouldn’t be sanctioning the ICC. It has no jurisdiction over America; what we’re doing is akin to water ballooning the girls’ sleepover. But the Rome Statute’s signatories should find a new method for ensuring the dream of universal human rights isn’t lost.

Continuing to bet on the ICC is continuing to bet on a dead horse. More of the world’s population, most of its economy, sits outside Statute signatory members. If we let the failed implementation get convoluted with the ideals that gave rise to it, we risk losing both for a generation.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute

That's a lot of fancy words to say, "America is a rogue regime that believes might makes right despite all the human rights, morals, and God bless America bullshit."

I actually don't mind tyranny on some level if I can't do anything against them. it just feels good having the mask of righteousness & honor fall off so that the world can see the ugly, unvarnished, hypocritical beast under the makeup.

I find it weird that you single out Bush. After 9/11, a military conflict was pretty much politically inevitable. The decision to expand to Iraq was stupid, but did it really shake up the post-1991 neoliberal consensus? Or was it just its final flex - "with this one trick, we can finally fix the Middle East"?

I think Russia deserves a lot of credit. It started long before Crimea. They had a military incursion into Georgia, secured a pro-Kremlin dictator in Belarus, nearly got away with the same in Ukraine and some other neighboring republics - all while buttering up the EU with energy deals. I think the European and American (non-)response to that was the death knell of that "rules-based" worldview.

While Russia acted belligerently, China played the long game to cement its geopolitical influence and make itself "too big to fail".

If there was a domestic inflection point in the US and in the EU, I think that was actually the housing crisis / the sovereign debt crisis around 2007-2009. That really undermined the optimism about supranational institutions.

ICC is not failed implementation.

> ICC is not failed implementation

As a global institution it certainly has. It has no jurisdiction over most of the world, and has net lost signatories since its birth [1]. And even where it has jurisdiction, it’s unceremoniously ignored [2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_parties_to_the_Rome_Sta...

[2] https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20241127-france-says-n...

That's a political matter.

Countries do not join because ICC is a failure.

More countries do not join because ICC is is not failure and is not compromised.

> decision to expand to Iraq was stupid, but did it really shake up the post-1991 neoliberal consensus?

Afghanistan was endorsed by the UN Security Council [1]. Iraq was not [2]. That set a loud precedent that wars of conquest were back on the table. (To be clear, they were never really off. China invaded and annexed Tibet without much of a fuss during the Cold War.)

> China played the long game to cement its geopolitical influence and make itself "too big to fail"

Nobody was ever bailing out China if it fails. It’s unclear it would be bailed out today. Too big to fail doesn’t apply.

What China has done is become too big to ignore. (Though Xi, being a dictator, seems unable to not squander goodwill every time China earns it. First with the Wolf Warrior nonsense. Now with these rare earth export restrictions on everyone.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Counci...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Counci...

> That's a political matter

It’s international law. Everything is, by definition, a political matter between sovereign states.

The ICC as an ideal may not be a failure, sure. As an instrument of practically effecting the world, it has failed. More than that, its impotence seems to have emboldened the notion that not only is its specific international law obsolete, but so is the concept of universal rights that states can’t deny.

> lot of fancy words to say, "America is a rogue regime

I’m saying all the great powers are rogue regimes by this definition. The only place the ICC applied was Europe, but now even it is ignoring its rulings.

The consensus that restrained the might makes right default of international relations has failed.

The US itself is no longer rules-based, at least in the sense of equal justice under law and no one above the law. Examples abound.

SCOTUS and the lower courts now selectively use history and tradition to skirt legislative texts to do whatever they want. For instance, the Second Amendment is clear and absolute that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and arms did not used to be forbidden when traveling — much less from airports, which did not exist, or even nautical ports. Yet the federal government prohibits carrying arms on airplanes, or even around the airport. Even my combo utility knife and bottle opener, with blade removed outside the airport, got confiscated recently.

Obviously, the usual rules do not apply to Trump (but do apply to similarly situated Democrat presidents).

And for something more quotidian, Florida state judges usually just do whatever the hell they want, summary-judgment and other rules be damned. And it's a rarity to get any appellate relief: the appellate courts typically affirm per curiam — that is, without any explanation whatsoever, on account of which the litigant is prohibited to seek further review in the Florida Supreme Court!

We are now a government of men, not of laws, and illogic and injustice reign supreme.

Here's why I don't apply the same metric/standard to China & Russia. They don't pontificate about their morals. They're mask-off about their Schmittian approach to power.

Western countries preach about morals, human rights, rules-based order, and all kinds of bullshit but always seem to violate their acclaimed principles every Wednesday.

China sells weapons to everyone who has money, works with all kinds of regimes, and generally have a non-interventionist policy. That's why smaller countries tend to prefer partnering with them. They're not your fairy godmother, but at least they're honest about what they want.

The ICC certainly has weaknesses but it's also effective. It has brought many to justice and Duerte is in custody now. The idea is that human rights abusers can win on the ground now, but must be wary that they can be held responsible later, and from what I understand it's a deterrent to such impunity. Not everyone can be brought to justice, maybe it will never reach that level, but perfection is not the standard.

> Continuing to bet on the ICC is continuing to bet on a dead horse.

That would be quitting by the ICC's supporters in the middle of the game. It amazes me how many non-neo-fascists embrace surrender and quitting like it's wisdom; like they are troops who actually listen to wartime propgandists like Tokyo Rose. The other team has scored; so you quit? Your app hasn't reached it's full market; so it's pointless and you stop now? On that basis, you'd never get started. (Particularly, the idea that lack of full success now is evidence of hopelessless - that is bizarre.)

The narrative of reactionaries has long been similar to the parent: It's childish idealism, it will die soon, etc. They find the narrative effective: it has emotional power - the childish part, the alarmism - and connects to that traumatic side of people that says ideals are pointless, that a hard cold world is 'reality'. It's power is when people believe it. Maybe the reactionaries actually believe it, and that's why they don't support those projects.

For example, I've read that the EU is on its last legs, may not last more than ____, since I started paying attention to such things. Even today, liberal democracy, after centuries of outstanding success, spreading around the world and being the most politically and economically (and militarily) successful political system in human history - is called a childish dream that will never work.

> It reflects the optimism of the 1990s’ newly unipolar world, one in which a rules-based international order —guaranteed by the United States—would reign supreme.

I think that also reflects that reactionary narrative - the idea that it's just a pipedream of a momentary trend; they also say universal human rights, which is written into the 18th century US Declaration of Independence and Constitution (which had their own predecessors), is just a fantasy of post-WWII liberalism. Some of these arguments are laughable.

The optimism long predated the end of the Cold War. After WWII, for example, aggressive warfare was successfully (not perfectly) outlawed, and institutions such as the UN, World Bank and IMF, EU (its ancestor), and many more were created after WWII - and by people who experienced the hard, cold aspects of the world than we are. And they weren't the start; they built on accomplishments of their predecessors.

> They don't pontificate about their morals. They're mask-off about their Schmittian approach to power

What? China regularly sells itself as a peaceful alternative to America. Russia used to make that pitch until the irony became too ridiculous to maintain.

> China sells weapons to everyone who has money, works with all kinds of regimes, and generally have a non-interventionist policy

They’ve been brazen about Taiwan!

> why smaller countries tend to prefer partnering with them

Except all the ones within shooting distance.

I agree completely about Iraq. The Bush II administration sought to undermine the rules-based international order, particularly its leading authority the UN Security Council. That dovetailed with their desire to invade Iraq.

The blow was significant - the US fabricated and misinterpreted evidence to justify the invasion, not only conducting an effectively illegal international war and violating that most fundamental of international laws, but also undermining the integrity of the international order's leader, the US itself. The rest of the West was so happy when Obama took over, he got the Nobel Peace Prize before he did anything - I think just for supporting the liberal order.

But like all recent Democratic leaders, he didn't fight much for it or for its values. Then Biden particularly was egregious, abandoning the cause of freedom (in Afghanistan, west Africa, India, China, etc.). His support for Ukraine and Taiwan appeared, to me, strictly geopolitical. In fact, I remember hearing that US officials had a policy to argue not for Ukraine's freedom and democracy, but for its sovereignty - and they seemed to observe that policy.

Without values, you have no direction, no force, no way to lead or organize. Biden's enemies have clear values - nationalism, ethnic nationalism, power (as value in itself). What were Biden's? What are the Democrats'? They've shut down the government over no value, only healthcare funding.

> I actually don't mind tyranny on some level if I can't do anything against them.

You use the username 'churchill'?

> The only place the ICC applied was Europe

There have been people from Africa put on trial - I would guess more than from Europe. Duerte from the Philippines is being prosecuted now.

> China sells weapons to everyone who has money, works with all kinds of regimes, and generally have a non-interventionist policy.

China says that, but they put countries into enormous debt and then control them. They also build naval bases in many of those countries.

> smaller countries tend to prefer partnering with them

Countries near China's borders have turned strongly against their neighbor. The US has built a widespread network of alliances around that.

Incidentally, with respect to the lies used to start America's war with Iraq:

> On 12 September 2002, Netanyahu lobbied for the invasion of Iraq, testifying under oath as a private citizen before the U.S. House of Representatives Government Reform Committee regarding the alleged nuclear threat posed by the Iraqi régime: "There is no question whatsoever that Saddam is seeking and is working and is advancing towards the development of nuclear weapons…"[74][75] He also testified, "If you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region."[75]

>China says that, but they put countries into enormous debt and then control them. They also build naval bases in many of those countries.

All the third-world countries that have had their debts to China blow out of control have been able to renegotiate.

>Countries near China's borders have turned strongly against their neighbor. The US has built a widespread network of alliances around that.

I'm not upholding China as a moral actor. They're as utilitarian as anyone else, but they're honest about it, that's all.

What do you conclude from that?

But that's where this specific case is destroying the little bit of credibility that the ICC had left. Up until now at least the ICC itself respected UN treaties. But one of those rights is for the accepted governments of territories to decide whether the ICC can accept cases on their territory.

So for instance, the ICC refused to hear a case brought against China on the Uyghur issue. The ICC refuses to hear cases on the Congo/Rwanda conflict. It initially refused the case against Duterte (and may refuse it again). The ICC refuses to hear a LOT of cases because governments refuse to accept ICC jurisdiction.

But the ICC has now chosen to deny the government of Israel that right. Israel withdrew from the Rome treaty, and denied the ICC the right to accept cases on Israeli territory ... and the ICC accepted this case on Israeli territory. And this isn't even the only Rome treaty rule that case violates.

The ICC itself has now chosen to ignore the rules in the treaty that created the ICC.

> They're as utilitarian as anyone else

Not every country is the same - that's a line used by bad actors to avoid scrutiny. And they are not honest about it - they say they don't interfere and are not acting for political interests, but they do.

> All the third-world countries that have had their debts to China blow out of control have been able to renegotiate.

I haven't read that but would be interested if you know of something. Also, what did they have to give up?

> They've shut down the government over no value, only healthcare funding.

I must’ve missed something: when was the GOP federal power trifecta broken?

In their own words, during the last shutdown: if you control Congress you own the shutdown. Period.

Like it or not, there actually is a global system of government. The problem is that the system of government is anarchic.

Putin has repeatedly used the Iraq War as a justification for his actions. As a formal excuse ("a major power is allowed to invade other countries according to its own judgment") and likely also as a personal belief. The NATO intervention in the Kosovo War probably had a bigger impact on Putin on a personal level, but it was less useful as an excuse for starting wars.

As for Belarus, the country only had free and fair elections once: in 1994, when Lukashenko became the president. Lukashenko was already a dictator when Putin was still a civil servant in Saint Petersburg.

> the ICC has now chosen to deny the government of Israel that right

Israel doesn't have any legal right to Gaza under international law, which was part of the 1947 plan's Arab State.

I'm not pointing fingers; the GOP has its own aims. The Dems' aim is healthcare funding, ostensibly.

It's a bad relationship for America. If we take the term "MAGA" at face value, we should be cutting Israel lose, not continuing to do their dirty work (e.g. shielding their politicians from legal responsibility for their war crimes.)