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.

> 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.

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.

> 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.