The merits of the case are mostly irrelevant because the ICC doesn’t have the authority to enforce any of its judgements. Any country that has one of its citizens (or leaders) convicted by the ICC cannot be compelled to honor the judgement, it can only do so voluntarily, whether it’s a signatory or not. If a country chooses not to comply, the only option is for the ICC to wage a war to enforce its judgement, which it can’t do, and is unlikely to convince others to do.
The name of the ICC does not describe what it actually does. The only role it’s ever actually fulfilled is to punish people who have already lost wars. Which is why it’s pretty much only ever been used to prosecute WWII losers, Yugoslavian civil war losers, and random African warlord losers.
The most optimistic outcomes for the ICC here are sanctions (which Israel’s closest allies wont participate in) or restricted international movement for the involved parties (which Israel’s closest allies will also ignore), and I still think that’s rather optimistic.
Well I think the ICC disagrees with your assessment of them, and they are in fact proving you incorrect by doing the exact opposite of what you’re claiming; attempting to try people who have potentially committed war crimes even though they are allies of western countries. I think this is an excellent thing personally and while it might be a new development for the court I think it’s very reasonable to follow the evidence and come to a conclusion despite huge political pressure.
Of course they would disagree. Their entire existence is based upon this fiction. The fact that they are attempting to reinforce this narrative doesn’t prove anything. If Netanyahu appears in handcuffs in The Hague I’d be forced to reassess my position, or better yet one of the too-many-to-count US war criminals. But I’m quite confident that’s never going to happen.
Talk is cheap, and it doesn’t matter what the ICC says, its role is defined by what it actually does. Which is as I’ve described.
Milosevic was sent to The Hague after being ousted by a political revolution. I guess you could say that's not exactly the same as losing a war, but certainly within the theme of international law only applying to history's losers (as opposed to history's criminals).
No matter how you spin it, a court created in the wake of the Nuremberg Trials has ironically sealed Israeli leadership's outcast international status. Win or lose, History won't be kind.
Absolutely right and there didn’t changed much in the last 100 years. Here a quote from a old book: ‘It is true that there exists a vast body of what is termed “international law”; but this bloodless caricature lacks the first essential foundation of law in capitalist society, the existence of a sovereign power capable of enforcing it…’[1].
> The merits of the case are mostly irrelevant because the ICC doesn’t have the authority to enforce any of its judgements. Any country that has one of its citizens (or leaders) convicted by the ICC cannot be compelled to honor the judgement, it can only do so voluntarily
This misunderstands how icc works. Generally the accused has to be in ICC custody for the case to go forward. Once the accused is in custody, the ICC has all sorts of power over them.
Perhaps you mean arresting people is hard. That is true, but the merit part only cones after that part.
> Which is why it’s pretty much only ever been used to prosecute WWII losers, Yugoslavian civil war losers
Neither of those were the ICC.
----
You're not entirely wrong of course. The ICC has trouble enforcing warrants against powerful people from powerful countries.
The US putting a bounty on the head of an internationally-recognized terrorist and leader of a violent non-state actor like Al-Qaeda is nowhere near comparable to an international body putting bounties out for the leaders of sovereign states of millions.
Right, in this hypothetical one bounty target has been convicted of war crimes by an internationally recognized court, and the other is Osama bin Laden.
You’re right about that, The ICC has actually only ever prosecuted Africans (and recently issued a couple of warrants against Russians). But The ICC, The ICTY and the IMT/IMTFE all have essentially the same authority when it comes to enforcing “international law”, which is none at all. International laws aren’t real, there is no international government, international police or international armed forces. All international legal or military actions take place only with the voluntary cooperation of all countries involved. If any country decides to withhold that cooperation on any particular issue, then there is no enforcement mechanism. Which is why all of history’s “international courts” have only ever prosecuted the losers of wars.
> International laws aren’t real, there is no international government, international police or international armed forces
What you are expressing here is essentially a variant of the philosophy known as "legal realism" – laws only exist to the extent they are enforced, so a law lacking a sufficiently effective enforcement mechanism isn't really a law at all.
However, that perspective was rarely heard prior to the 20th century. Historically, international law grew out of the work of early modern European scholars such Grotius. Many of them (Grotius included) were natural law theorists – they saw the law of nations as grounded in human nature, and ultimately established by God. In those days, much of Europe – even in the purely domestic sphere – was still governed by customary law: laws evolved due to custom, whose content was never entirely clear, and which were never perfectly enforced. The continental legal tradition was founded on ancient Roman law, which continued to be studied as a kind of abstract intellectual system in universities long after it had ceased to be enforced in practice – however, rather than an exercise without any practical relevance, lawyers and judges would apply its provisions to every day cases, but only when they could get away with doing so – an attempt whenever they could to impose some neat Roman order on the anarchic mess of royal decrees and Germanic pagan custom. Against that historical background, the idea of international law without any clear lawgiver or law-enforcer made much more sense than it does to you.
The way it works today is the way it’s always worked. Laws have always needed enforcers, and international laws have only ever been enforced by the winners of war against the losers of war. That’s why the Romans enforced egregious reparations against the Carthaginians after the first Punic war (and took many of their men into slavery), which lead to the second Punic war (after which the same thing happened again).
> The way it works today is the way it’s always worked. Laws have always needed enforcers
Again, you are relying on a contested viewpoint in the philosophy of law as if it were obviously true, despite the fact that many people (both historically and today) disagree with it.
It is one thing to argue for a contested philosophical position – but if you are just going to assert it as "obvious" or "self-evident", then you are really just preaching to the choir, you can only ever convince people who already agree with you.
I'm simply stating the facts of history, which your primary criticism of seems to be that they're too realistic. Describing a viewpoint as contested doesn't really mean anything, you are here contesting it, so it's self-evidently contested. That doesn't lend any credibility to what you're saying. Laws without enforcers are just somebody's ideas, and having some esoteric philosophical objection this doesn't change the reality of the situation.
I could issue an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, and hold a trial for him myself. Perhaps I could also contrive some philosophical justification for why this would be a deeply meaningful act, but the reality of daily life would continue without any regard for such a gesture.
> I could issue an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, and hold a trial for him myself.
And it wouldn't be discussed through-out the Internet. It wouldn't be spoken about on CNN and other mainstream media.
It all really comes to this, doesn't it? It all comes to the established belief in the authorities. With enough uncontested claims like yours, the power of ICC would fade. However because of witty responses of skissane, its power grows.
One of the best quotes from the Game of Thrones/A Song of Ice and Fire:
> A King, a priest, a rich man and a sellsword are in a room. Those three man tell the sellsword to kill the other two.
> I'm simply stating the facts of history, which your primary criticism of seems to be that they're too realistic.
No, my criticism is that you are making the category mistake of confusing history with philosophy of law.
Nobody disputes the historical fact that international law has never seen any more than selective enforcement.
The dispute is about what relevance that historical fact has for the ontological status of international law qua law. That's a philosophy of law question, not a history question.
You are also ignoring the historical fact that the vast majority of states prefer to claim compliance with international law (however dubiously) rather than openly defy it. If other states accuse them of violating international law, the standard diplomatic response is to dispute the contents of the law or its application to the facts at hand, not to reject the whole concept of international law. Your nihilism about international law ignores the real historical fact that states at least pretend to believe in it – and a lot of the people who make those decisions on behalf of states (diplomats, bureaucrats, politicians, etc) aren't just pretending to believe in it, they really actually do. This is a real historical and contemporary phenomenon your theory can't explain.
> I could issue an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, and hold a trial for him myself.
There is an obvious difference – nobody with any real world power would accept what you did as legitimate. Whereas, if the ICC issues an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, many people around the world with real power (government officials, judges, diplomats, international bureaucrats, etc) will officially consider that a legitimate act. Now, of course, despite the fact these people do have some real world power, it is unlikely to be enough in practice to actually bring about Netanyahu's arrest. But still, that's a very different situation from your hypothetical of an act which nobody with any significant real world power would accept as legitimate.
And, an ICC arrest warrant is likely to have some real world consequences for Netanyahu – it will likely reduce somewhat his ability to travel internationally; it is also likely to harm Israel diplomatically and politically (e.g. it could well make an easier job for people lobbying for various governments to recognise the State of Palestine); conversely, it is likely also going to help Netanyahu in Israel's domestic politics; whereas, your warrant/trial would have zero real world consequences for him or for his government or country.
I find it a little unfortunate that the ANC, who have explicitly stated they won't enforce the ICC warrant against Putin (and have previously ignored ICC genocide charges against a Sudanese leader), were still considered a reasonable group to prosecute Israel.
Makes it look rather like they did so at the behest of Russia (whether on behalf of their ally Iran or as a simple continuation of Russian support for the ANC, who knows).
Even if it only looks like that, the conflict of interest is sufficiently obvious that I find it difficult to regard the ICC's indictments wrt Israel as judicially legitimate.
(this is not to imply that Israel is anywhere near innocent of all accusations made against her, only that I see no reason to trust the ICC's judgement in the matter of which ones she's guilty of)
The ICC is not prosecuting Israel. The ICC prosecutes individuals. South African or the ANC have no saying in who the ICC pursues cases against.
The ICJ is handling a the case against Israel filed by South Africa. The ICJ handles only cases with state parties, and only on the basis of complaints of one of those state parties.
The two cases are entirely separate, and the ICC and ICJ are two entirely different courts. The ICC was created under the Rome Statue. The ICJ, meanwhile was founded on the basis of the UN Charter.
I think ICJ giving credence to South Africa given they consider the ICC optional is still ... unfortunate, at best, but "conflict of interest" is rather less applicable.
"The merits of the case are mostly irrelevant because the ICC doesn’t have the authority to enforce any of its judgements." - tell this to Slobodan Milošević
He was delivered to the court by his own country who was heavily pressured by the United States. That is obviously not going to happen to Netanyahu considering both US political parties back Israel.
A conviction would also require signatory states to arrest the convicted persons - or give up the support for the ICC. Almost all of the EU is member of the ICC. A conviction, or even just an arrest warrant would lead to massive political complications for the EU-Israel relations.
> If a country chooses not to comply, the only option is for the ICC to wage a war to enforce its judgement
not just does the US criminal elite not recognize ICC but they took it one step further with spelling out[1] what might happen if a US criminal is being charged by the court:
"The Hague Invasion Act", allows the president to order U.S. military action, such as an invasion of the Netherlands, where The Hague is located, to protect American officials and military personnel from prosecution or rescue them from custody.
... so not only should Israeli and Hamas war crimes be prosecuted, but in order not to appear utterly hypocritical, and "to do right by history", should US/UK war criminals like Dick Cheney, G.W. Bush, Tony Blair, and all other despicable criminal soldiers face the music for what they did in Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, and other places. Kidnapping from a sovereign country, torture, etc ... Just utterly barbaric.
But the US especially is a lost cause considering how they treat the worst transgressors and war-criminals like the execution without trial as in the case of Osama bin Laden. So just imagine if anyone would propose having US war criminals meet that very same fate? It would get you banned on every Internet site for "hate speech" LOL. Which is why it's pointless to cite laws, the justice system or pen and paper to solve something that is immune to that.
- You act like it’s unreasonable for the United States to not want US citizens held by bodies the United States doesn’t recognize the authority of. No sovereign country would accept this.
- What crimes and under whose jurisdiction are Dick Cheney, Tony Blair, and George Bush guilty of? Osama bin Laden was indicted by a US grand jury under US jurisdiction and refused for extradition by the Taliban, not to mention his Interpol arrest warrant from Libya.
You also linked the Wikipedia page for the Hague Invasion Act but didn’t bring up this paragraph from the Abu Ghraib one:
> In response to the events at Abu Ghraib, the United States Department of Defense removed 17 soldiers and officers from duty. Eleven soldiers were charged with dereliction of duty, maltreatment, aggravated assault and battery. Between May 2004 and April 2006, these soldiers were court-martialed, convicted, sentenced to military prison, and dishonorably discharged from service. Two soldiers, found to have perpetrated many of the worst offenses at the prison, Specialist Charles Graner and PFC Lynndie England, were subject to more severe charges and received harsher sentences. Graner was convicted of assault, battery, conspiracy, maltreatment of detainees, committing indecent acts and dereliction of duty; he was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment and loss of rank, pay and benefits. England was convicted of conspiracy, maltreating detainees and committing an indecent act and sentenced to three years in prison.
Let’s not act like the United States not being party to the Rome Statute means that US soldiers can commit crimes with impunity and not be punished under policy like the UCMJ.
For the US to engage in acts of war against countries that make their choices as to how to apply treaties with the force of law in their territory is pretty extreme, yes. Most countries do accept that if their citizens are held in foreign territory for violation of laws enforceable in that territory, that is an issue for diplomacy, not invasion.
> unreasonable for the United States to not want US citizens held by bodies the United States doesn't recognize the authority of. No sovereign country would accept this.
Many US citizens killed by state actors abroad, including by allies. Nothing of note happens. The key here is you think it is unreasonable for US war criminals to be tried at all (even when they commit atrocities in countries party to the Rome Statue).
US doesn't recognize any bodies that aren't 100% under the control of US interests.
The people I've mentioned are guilty of acting on made up fake intel (Iraq has WMD's). They ought to face the same fate as Saddam Hussein.
Also in Abu Ghraib low ranking soldiers got convicted when the entire chain of command's been guilty of these crimes. It wasn't a one off.
The US always has and always will continue to commit war crimes because they never had to reckon with their imperial past. And chickens are gonna come home to roost because no other country has been subject to propaganda by its own government while also to that of other countries (Russia/China) as the US. And having such a large number of people simply being illiterate isn't helping.
The reason Trump came to power isn't just because Russia made that happen (also Russia winning the infowar and enabling Trump is the biggest successful Information Operation and achievement of soft-power in the last 4000 years).
I might change my mind if the US is able to do a peaceful handover of power (without an insurrection) next time this is due. And also provided that they do manage to treat the homeless as human beings. Until then this country remains a failed experiment whose population lacks manners, history, culture, cuisine or basic decency. And every soldier (no matter from what poor background they stem) are an embodiment of that failure.
I guess this sounds like Anti-Americanism. But actually I think the US model is the most promising system we have in something that claims it's the free world. I'm just allergic to all forms of nationalistic boot-licking. And I also believe that the only way to make a system stronger is when it's being critcized. Being addicted to applause and praise for imperial achievements of your own country is for the simps who have never lived abroad, and/or for nationalist bootlickers (the US is full of both).
The name of the ICC does not describe what it actually does. The only role it’s ever actually fulfilled is to punish people who have already lost wars. Which is why it’s pretty much only ever been used to prosecute WWII losers, Yugoslavian civil war losers, and random African warlord losers.
The most optimistic outcomes for the ICC here are sanctions (which Israel’s closest allies wont participate in) or restricted international movement for the involved parties (which Israel’s closest allies will also ignore), and I still think that’s rather optimistic.