←back to thread

89 points henearkr | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.45706114[source]
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

replies(6): >>45706185 #>>45706189 #>>45706195 #>>45706252 #>>45706335 #>>45706350 #
nabla9 ◴[] No.45706195[source]
ICC is not failed implementation.
replies(1): >>45706212 #
JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.45706212[source]
> 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...

replies(1): >>45706238 #
1. nabla9 ◴[] No.45706238{3}[source]
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.

replies(1): >>45706275 #
2. JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.45706275[source]
> 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.

replies(1): >>45707294 #
3. spwa4 ◴[] No.45707294[source]
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.

replies(1): >>45708148 #
4. JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.45708148{3}[source]
> 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.