| |
| ▲ | mananaysiempre 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > Courts are political entities but this is one that Israel chose to accept For what it’s worth, Israel signed the Rome Statute establishing the court in 2000 but declared in 2002 it no longer intends to ratify it[1]. (Which, I guess, is marginally better than the US, which has threatened The Hague with military invasion in case any arrests are made[2]. But not by much.) TFA specifically points out that “States are not entitled to challenge the Court’s jurisdiction under article 19(2) prior to the issuance of a warrant of arrest.” [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_parties_to_the_Rome_Sta... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr... | | |
| ▲ | belter 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | If we are going to discuss the diplomatic and international implications of the ICC, it is important to note that the security—and even the continued existence as independent, sovereign entities—of the countries supporting the court is overwhelmingly reliant on the U.S. military umbrella. Without this protection, their sovereignty would quickly be at risk. | | |
| ▲ | pepve 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm not sure you are right. Take a look at this map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court . I don't think "overwhelmingly reliant on the US" is an accurate description of the green countries on that map. Partially reliant sure. But not overwhelmingly. | | |
| ▲ | dingnuts 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | You don't? I suggest you look at the figures for who is providing aid to Ukraine and ask yourself why the green nations in Europe are paying so much less than the US to fight Russia. This is why Trump won again, by the way. Because Europe expected the US to fund their defense in this war, and people who do not live in cities with access to the global market see no benefit to aiding Europe and voted that Europe should pay for its own defense. I guess now we'll get to see what happens when the US lets those European nations that are shaded green defend themselves without us. | | |
| ▲ | ivan_gammel 5 days ago | parent [-] | | > ask yourself why the green nations in Europe are paying so much less than the US to fight Russia Oh, this is simple. Ukraine would be able to defend itself if it kept nuclear weapons. However they signed a treaty with USA, UK and Russia and gave up their nuclear weapons in exchange for some security guarantees. Russia did not honor that agreement. If USA and UK fail to provide adequate support, nobody will sign such treaties again. What’s even worse, nuclear arms are becoming the only real security guarantee, so the fate of Ukraine defines the fate of nuclear non-proliferation. | | |
| ▲ | bluGill 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Ukraine couldn't have kept nuclear weapons. It needs a lot of technical expertise to do that, particularly in today's world where you only test them in simulation which means you need great ability to trust your simulations. Ukraine didn't even have the keys to use the weapons they had (Russia did) which means they needed to first rebuild each with new keys. Not that Ukraine couldn't do all that, but they just don't have the money to do that and everything else they also need to do. Nuclear weapons are an obvious first thing to go because they are only useful in a situation where you want to end the world. In almost all cases it is better to be able to defend yourself without ending the world. | | |
| ▲ | ivan_gammel 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | North Korea is poorer country with less resources, yet they manage to work on their own nuclear program. It is not impossible task, just a matter of priorities. And it’s a really good deterrent. | |
| ▲ | snovv_crash 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Ukraine built those nuclear weapons. | | |
| ▲ | ivan_gammel 4 days ago | parent [-] | | No. It was Soviet Union. Most part of the nuclear program was done in what is modern Russia. | | |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | belter 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | No countries in Africa and Latin America would enforce the ICC arrest request for Putin. Concerning the rest of Europe, with the exception of the only military power left: France, are you arguing they could defend their sovereignty without the USA military big stick? "Why Europe Is Unprepared to Defend Itself" - https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2024-nato-armed-forces/ | | |
| ▲ | HWR_14 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Who does Europe need to defend itself against? Russia can't invade Ukraine, and it has 1/10 the population (less?) and arms that are leftovers from European armories (and US armories). Is China going to roll troops across a continent? | | |
| ▲ | varjag 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | If North Korea does, why not China? Also worth mentioning that without the United States the present continental European militaries would struggle even against the battered ground forces of Russia. Can't really fight back with GDP of your service economy alone. | | |
| ▲ | HWR_14 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | North Korea is being being paid by Russia to supply troops. Russia cannot afford Chinese troops. And even if they could afford them, China is throwing its weight around Asia and wants its military intact there. | | |
| ▲ | varjag 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Sure, and North Korea wants to man its border for the eventuality of war with the South. At least that's what everyone would have said before it happened. NK troops in Ukraine weren't on anyone's bingo card. |
| |
| ▲ | vkou 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | North Korea is involved in it for the same reason countries send military observers to conflicts. It hasn't fought a war in decades, and it needs to figure out whether or not any of its shit/doctrines/etc works. It doesn't actually give a rat's ass about Crimea or Ukraine or Russian claims. It fully relies on friendly logistics to participate in the conflict. |
| |
| ▲ | belter 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Will your opinion change, when you see a photo of Polish soldiers looking at North Korean battalions across their fence border? | | |
| ▲ | HWR_14 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Absolutely not. North Korea is essentially selling mercenary services to Russia. They're the only country that will really do that, and they will have to rely on the pretty broken Russian supply lines to do so. And Russia probably won't even be able to afford to pay for a second wave from North Korea. |
| |
| ▲ | int_19h 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | What the war in Ukraine is showing is that Russia is capable of running a wartime economy, cranking out artillery shells etc at replacement rates, while Europe, so far, has not demonstrated the ability to do so, which is why supplies are dwindling - you can only run so far on existing stocks. It should also be noted that Ukraine has been preparing for this exact scenario since 2014, building massive fortifications in the east (which is precisely why the Russian advance there has always been such a grind). In the event of an open confrontation between Russia and European countries currently backing Ukraine, it's not at all a given that the latter can hold significantly better than Ukraine does today, without American help. European armed forces are generally in a pathetic shape, grossly undermanned and underfunded, and would simply run out of materiel before Russia runs out of bodies to throw at them. | | |
| ▲ | HWR_14 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Russia's economy is tanking fast. Their wartime economy, in addition to crushing the civilian economy, has already hit it's peak. Russia is pretty much running low on bodies just in Ukraine. They've already emptied the jails. Europe doesn't produce artillery shells because NATO (even NATO minus US) can drop bombs after air superiority instead. Most importantly, Ukraine is doing this well with politically imposed limits on what they can do with those weapons. In a Russia vs. NATO minus US war, Russia will have to defend against deep strikes on critical infrastructure. | | |
| ▲ | int_19h 4 days ago | parent [-] | | The problem with all this stuff is that we've heard "Russia's economy is tanking fast" already during the first year of the war, and yet... As far as "running out of bodies", the more accurate statement would be "running out of volunteers". While much has been made of Russia emptying its prisons, this ignores the fact that the majority of its fighting force are people who come to fight willingly, largely because of pay. Ukraine, on the other hand, has to rely on forced mobilization. At some point, Russia will do the same if needed - and yes, the regime doesn't want to do it because of political cost associated with it, but they absolutely can pull that off if and when they needed. The notion that you can "just drop bombs after air superiority" hinges on the ability to establish said air superiority. US might be able to pull that off against Russia, but I very much doubt that Europe can. Not to mention that bombs also run out. | | |
| ▲ | HWR_14 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Obviously bombs can run out. But that's why major NATO countries have stockpiles of bombs and the ability to produce them. The fact that they didn't maintain large scale artillery shell production isn't relevant to whether they maintained bomb production. I would guess that European NATO could maintain air superiority. The Ukrainians seem to have denied Russia air superiority without the benefit of anywhere near as large an air force. Russia has been importing soldiers from third-party countries. It does not speak well for the state of your armed forces if every growing percentages of your troops aren't even your own citizens. Meanwhile, Russia's economy has been collapsing over the past two years. Their central bank has a 21% interest rate, there a million jobs they cannot fill because those people are off fighting a war (it may only be 500,000 jobs, accounts differ). It's backstopped by being a petrostate so they have oil money as a country, but that only papers over things for so long. | | |
| ▲ | int_19h a day ago | parent [-] | | Like I said, we've heard "Russia's economy is collapsing" for 3 years straight now. I even believed it myself for the first year, but I have relatives actually living there - who aren't even pro-war - and the picture painted in the Western press has little to do with realities on the ground. Right now the economy is booming as far as most people are concerned. How sustainable it all is, is a good question, but given that the same people making the doom and gloom predictions long ago, I don't see why I should continue listening to them. As far as Ukraine being able to deny Russian air superiority, that is evidence towards my point that Russia would similarly be able to deny air superiority to any European force. Westerners are way too used to fighting colonial wars against people whose best AA weapon is an old Stinger, but these things work very differently against a more or less modern power. The lack of manpower is, again, for political reasons. Mobilization wouldn't be any more popular in Russia than it is in Ukraine. So they want to avoid it if they can by hiring mercs as replacement troops, whether from the heretofore neglected Russian province or from abroad like with NK forces. But make no mistake, Russia can do mobilization if it needs to, and they have more enforcement mechanisms for it compared to Ukraine, not to mention larger reserves. This is partly why the higher-ups are okay with such high losses, and it takes truly massive screw-ups for generals to get kicked out - the government doesn't see those losses as unsustainable. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | fakedang 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If that was the case, Putin shouldn't have holed up in Russia during the BRICS conference in South Africa earlier this year. | |
| ▲ | cycomanic 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You're making two arguments it seems,
1. Who is enforcing the arrest warrant against Putin, which I don't get, how should Europe or an African or Latin American country enforce the warrant enforce the warrant without Putin travelling there? I seriously doubt Putin would travel to a country where risks arrest. Or are you suggesting countries should invade Russia to arrest Putin. I don't see anyone including the US (thankfully) doing that. AFAIK that would also constitute a violation of international law (mind you many western countries really only care as long as it suits them, the whole Israel situation being a clear example).
2. The question if Europe could defend itself against invasion without the US. Defend against whom I have to ask, the only possible aggressor would be Russia, but Russia is struggling with their Ukraine invasion, a much smaller, less trained, less equipped force than Nato even without the US. The suggestion that Russia is in any position to threaten Europe is absolutely laughable. The only way that would happen is using nuclear weapons, and once we go down that path the whole world is f*ckd. | |
| ▲ | aguaviva 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | No countries in Africa and Latin America would enforce the ICC arrest request for Putin. That's your straight-up speculation. Meanwhile, the fact that he hasn't visited any of those countries -- suggests he knows better. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 5 days ago | parent [-] | | It's not entirely speculation; South Africa certainly wanted to avoid it. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/south-africa-asks-icc-... > South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has asked permission from the International Criminal Court not to arrest Russia's Vladimir Putin, because to do so would amount to a declaration of war, a local court submission published on Tuesday showed. Brazil waffled, too. https://www.reuters.com/world/up-brazils-judiciary-decide-pu... > On Saturday, while in India for a Group of 20 nations meeting, Lula told a local interviewer that there was "no way" Putin would be arrested if he attended next year's summit, which is due to be held in Rio de Janeiro. | | |
| ▲ | aguaviva 4 days ago | parent [-] | | 74 countries across the two regions, last we checked. You've got 72 to go. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Only one - Chile - has affirmatively stated they’d execute the warrant. Small countries try not to piss off large nuclear powers with a history of polonium use. | | |
| ▲ | aguaviva 4 days ago | parent [-] | | So it's not "No countries in Latin America", then. And if we're going to use your dataset to extrapolate anything: probably half of them will enforce the warrant. More substantially: I don't see where you're going with these objections. It's not like I think the warrant will be hugely successful. But it has to be issued and -- until Putin shows a significant readiness to bend -- it has to be kept in place. And it will have some effect. The exact percentage of countries that can be counted on to enforce it on continent X is obviously irrelvant. I only jumped in because of the obviously vacuous, extremified formulation ("No country will ..."). Obviously they didn't mean it literally, but to underscore their point; but still -- it's a weird habit people unfortunately have on HN. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 4 days ago | parent [-] | | > And if we're going to use your dataset to extrapolate anything: probably half of them will enforce the warrant. Even Chile's stated willingness is probably a bit like "if I were a billionaire I'd do <great things>" - easy to say when it's not an actual decision ready to be made. I like being pedantic as much as the next person, but "small developing countries don't love pissing off big angry ones with nukes" isn't the outrageous conclusion you're portraying it as. | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | mmastrac 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | As a follow-up to [2], even more interesting is the text of covered persons: "military personnel, elected or appointed officials, and other persons employed by or working on behalf of the government of a NATO member country, a major non-NATO ally including Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Argentina, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand" | | |
| ▲ | buckle8017 5 days ago | parent [-] | | That's not the list of covered persons. The act bars military aid to any country that is a signatory to the court, except those countries. | | |
| ▲ | mananaysiempre 5 days ago | parent [-] | | It’s both, effectively, but the GP is quoting the correct copy of the list. The prohibition you mention is in 22 USC 7426: > (a) PROHIBITION OF MILITARY ASSISTANCE.—Subject to subsections (b) and (c), and effective 1 year after the date on which the Rome Statute enters into force pursuant to Article 126 of the Rome Statute, no United States military assistance may be provided to the government of a country that is a party to the International Criminal Court. > [...] > (d) EXEMPTION.—The prohibition of subsection (a) shall not
apply to the government of— > (1) a NATO member country; > (2) a major non-NATO ally (including Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Argentina, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand); or > (3) Taiwan. The threat I was talking about is in 22 USC 7427: > (a) AUTHORITY.—The President is authorized to use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any person described in subsection (b) who is being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court. > (b) PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO BE FREED.—The authority of sub-section (a) shall extend to the following persons: > (1) Covered United States persons. > (2) Covered allied persons. > (3) Individuals detained or imprisoned for official actions taken while the individual was a covered United States person or a covered allied person, and in the case of a covered allied person, upon the request of such government. > [...] with “covered persons” defined in 22 USC 7432 by essentially the same list as above, as long as those countries do not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC: > [...] > (3) COVERED ALLIED PERSONS.—The term “covered allied persons” means military personnel, elected or appointed officials, and other persons employed by or working on behalf of the government of a NATO member country, a major non-NATO ally (including Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Argentina, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand), or Taiwan, for so long as that government is not a party to the International Criminal Court and wishes its officials and other persons working on its behalf to be exempted from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. > (4) COVERED UNITED STATES PERSONS.—The term “covered United States persons” means members of the Armed Forces of the United States, elected or appointed officials of the United States Government, and other persons employed by or working on behalf of the United States Government, for so long as the United States is not a party to the International Criminal Court. > [...] | | |
| ▲ | buckle8017 4 days ago | parent [-] | | You'll note that the Covered Allied Persons excludes those countries on the list so long as they are party to the ICC. The military aid prohibition does not. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | seabass-labrax 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Israel don't recognize the authority of the International Criminal Court. Palestine, however, does, and therefore the ICC consider these allegations within their jurisdiction. A relevant point is that the UK (under the previous Conservative party government) requested the opportunity to dispute the allegations of war crimes based on this complication, but the new British government did not choose to continue with the objection. No other countries have made objections. | | |
| ▲ | bawolff 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The challenge wasn't based on exactly that, they were trying to argue that a treaty palestine signed with israel precluded palestine from giving icc juridsiction that it didn't have itself. That said, if it ever gets to trial, the defendants will almost certainly try to challenge it on that basis. Realistically though i think the chance of that type of challenge succeding is unlikely. International courts generally are above domestic law. They probably have a better chance of convincing the court that palestine isn't a state and thus cannot sign the rome statue (which is also a long shot imo) | | |
| ▲ | HappyPanacea 5 days ago | parent [-] | | > Courts are political entities but this is one that Israel chose to accept and recognize the authority of. They were replying to this part of the comment which was factually incorrect (Israel did not recognize ICC authority) not on what the challenge on jurisdiction was |
| |
| ▲ | loceng 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Good thing that's not how laws are formed - "your" not recognizing authority doesn't mean "you" haven't committed the war crimes or other illegal act that international organization has charged you with; so far it's worked that veto power can immediately suppress action even when the rest of the organized-civilized world is against you, where so far most international organizations have been for theatre - but where we have an opportunity for them to finally have teeth. | |
| ▲ | 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | immibis 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | bawolff 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > Germany, the second biggest sponsor of mass slaughter (presently and historically) also claims to be bound by this court, but for some reason ignores it when it is in Israeli interests to do so. When has germany ever ignored the ICC? I dont think there is a single instance of that, whether involving israel or otherwise. | |
| ▲ | seabass-labrax 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | The government of Germany clearly prefer to side with Israel on any matter related to Palestine (or Lebanon for that matter), but in fairness it has taken this long for the ICC's prosecutor to bring a case. The real tests will begin if, for instance, Netanyahu visits Germany, because that will trigger an obligation for Germany to arrest him. There may of course already be domestic German laws which arms sales to Israel may be breaking, but as far as I'm aware Germany has only had a duty to cooperate with the ICC since the warrant was issued earlier today. |
|
| |
| ▲ | bawolff 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Courts are political entities but this is one that Israel chose to accept and recognize the authority of As far as i am aware, this is a false statement. Israel has been opposed to the ICC since its inception (originally because the first version had a judge selection mechanism they thought was biased against them, although i am sure there are other reasons they object, especially relating to their settlements). Perhaps you are confusing the ICC with the ICJ, which are totally different things. | |
| ▲ | usaar333 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Neither Israel nor the de-facto government of Gaza they are fighting ever accepted the authority of the ICC; neither has signed the Rome Treaty. The ICC authority is being derived from the Palestinian Authority applying for membership and the Court deciding earlier in a 2-1 decision that Palestine is a state, the PA is the legitimate government of Palestine, and that Gaza is territory under its jurisdiction. | | |
| ▲ | bawolff 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > Court deciding earlier in a 2-1 decision that Palestine is a state, the PA is the legitimate government of Palestine, and that Gaza is territory under its jurisdiction. I think you are overstating it. They made a provisional decision, but just for the purpose of if the investigation can go forward. The decision does not decide whether or not palestine is a state in general, and if this ever goes to trial the defendants can still challenge this decision. | |
| ▲ | klipt 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | sudosysgen 5 days ago | parent [-] | | This case was not filed by any country, it was directly filed by Karim Khan, an employee of the ICC. The court that requires a country to file is the ICJ. Iran is already a signatory to the ICJ and there is nothing that would legally prevent them from filing a case if they wanted to. | | |
| ▲ | seabass-labrax 5 days ago | parent [-] | | I was also curious about parent's claim so I did some searching of my own. The claim is from a report published a few days ago called 'South Africa, Hamas, Iran, and Qatar: The Hijacking of the ANC and the International Court of Justice': https://isgap.org/follow-the-money/ Its author, the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy, is ostensibly American, although I can find no indication of its incorporation in the USA. The Israeli government is the largest donor to the organization according to 'The Forward', which is a newspaper incorporated as a non-profit charity in the USA. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | blackeyeblitzar 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Israel chose to accept and recognize the authority of Israel never ratified the Rome statute. The US withdrew but Israel never ratified it in the first place. > It has a history of being very transparent in its decisions and is widely recognized as being neutral and fair in their decision making process There is a long section on criticism against the ICC, not just from Israel, that suggests otherwise:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court | |
| ▲ | 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | unyttigfjelltol 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
|
