The US withdrew its signature all the way back in 2002, the same year the ICC came into being.

It's only "their job" where they have jurisdiction.

This is like Ofcom trying to require overseas companies/providers to enforce the Online Safety Act.

The ICC doesn't even automatically have jurisdiction of signatory nations either -- it's only when that nation fails to actively pursue prosecutions in their own courts.

▲

Kim_Bruning 14 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

ICC has jurisdiction in the signatory countries themselves.

▲

bigcat12345678 19 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Since when US requires "jurisdiction" for it's actions?

▲

busterarm 16 minutes ago | parent [-]

Nice whataboutism.

All UN member states are de facto part of the ICJ. If you have a valid claim against a nation, the proper place to pursue that is the ICJ.

Hate what the US and Israel are doing or not, what the ICC is doing here is entirely political posturing and theater.

▲

estearum 8 minutes ago | parent [-]

Think the ICC is engaged in political posturing and theater all you want, sanctions are not an appropriate tool

	▲	busterarm 2 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		They aren't? The US government has authority over its borders and assets within them. This is an action that is perfectly legal and enabled by acts of Congress. It actually has real teeth. I don't necessarily agree with it either but what do you expect to happen in response to the ICC's action. The ICC is trying to set a precedent that the US views as against its interests. Go ahead and poke the bear.

▲

atoav 11 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Well many of the countries where the war crimes happened are signatories to the ICC, so that isn't gonna be the problem you think it is.

Also: the US acting as a rouge state is not a power move it is a sign of moral decay, corruption and a critical failure to uphold the principles laid out in its own (wonderfully written!) Declaration of Independence.

It is just sad to see how hollowed out these great ideals have become.