←back to thread

89 points henearkr | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.199s | source
Show context
nabla9 ◴[] No.45706177[source]
The arrest warrants are as solid as humanly possible.

Before the arrest warrant by the Judge, before the ICC prosecutor even attempted to ask for arrest, they asked second opinion from a Panel of Experts in International Law that included top experts, including Theodor Meron; Hebrew University (M.J.), Harvard Law School (LL.M., J.S.D.) and Cambridge University (Diploma in Public International Law) who was once was a legal adviser of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, then Israeli Ambassador in Canada, President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and so on.

The panel unanimously agreed with the prosecutor.

replies(2): >>45706200 #>>45706201 #
JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.45706200[source]
> arrest warrants are as solid as humanly possible

This isn’t a debate around this international law, but international law broadly.

The ICC has no jurisdiction in America, Russia or China. Nor India, Pakistan, Indonesia and a host of other states. Most of the world’s population and most of the world’s economy isn’t subject to it. (Even those who are find convenient excuses for not enforcing its warrants.)

International law experts will agree these warrants are legal because per international law they are. The broader debate being missed is what role international law has to play in a multipolar world. Historically, and by that I mean Metternich’s peace, the law that matters in multipolar international politics is only that which the great powers agree to, and only so long as they agree to it.

replies(3): >>45706299 #>>45707245 #>>45716355 #
1. daft_pink ◴[] No.45716355[source]
I think there is additionally a question about whether you can apply laws and the legal system to war.

It just seems very impractical to accept the death of your own soldiers in the face of an enemy that hides behind their population as human shields.