...what? What does the UN have to do with war crimes lol. And why would the US care about war crimes we literally aren't signatory to the Rome statute. how could your comment get so many things wrong in so little text.

▲

yread 21 hours ago | parent [-]

war crimes don't have anything to do with Rome, Rome is only about prosecution by ICC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes

▲

jasomill 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

And while the US is a member of the UN and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (not the ICC), as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, it also has the power to unilaterally veto any enforcement action (as do China, France, Russia, and the UK).

▲

reddozen 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Ok? The ICC prosecutes war crimes in complementarity. The ICJ does not. Not sure what UN Security Council has to do with anything? I can't tell if this is AI. Add to your slop context you're probably thinking of IHL.

	▲	spwa4 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		What you are leaving out is that governments can choose whether the ICC definition of warcrime applies to their territory. Iran has chosen that the Rome treaty, and the ICC, does not apply to Iran. It has even used this fact to request the ICC drop cases against them. We all know why: 99.99% of warcrimes on Iranian territory were committed by Iran's islamist regime. So Rome statute warcrimes are a legal impossibility in Iran. The Rome statute, that law and that definition of warcrime does not apply to anything happening in Iran.

▲

reddozen 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You do recognize the contradiction saying Rome Statute has nothing to do with war crimes, then saying Rome Statute is how you prosecute war crimes right?

▲

9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]