The relationship between the ICC and the "great powers" is an interesting one. It sort of separates the normal alliances of "west" and "non-west" alliances, and reshapes them into powerful and non-powerful. And it seems this conflict is ongoing.

Apart from Europe, the number large, powerful non-signatory countries is pretty significant: US, China, India, Russia, Iran, Saudi, Egypt, Turkey, Indonesia, and more.

I've always thought it is interesting that the concept of international law is by definition in conflict with the de facto anarchy of international relations. I've always had mixed opinions on the topic, simply because you can look at an institution like the UN, and see that it functions much more successfully as a simple forum than a deliberative body. The idea that somehow we are going to implement something as difficult as a criminal court on an international basis seems... very idealistic. A court like this always seems sensible at first glance, but I'm not sure it can really exist effectively at all over any serious time horizon.

▲

Barrin92 17 minutes ago | parent [-]

>interesting that the concept of international law is by definition in conflict of the anarchy of real Realpolitik

not 'by definition'. There's a fairly good case to be made that playing by, and being able to set, international norms is in the long term interest of powerful countries. For one because you don't know when you'll cease to be powerful, which will happen given enough time and secondly because even smaller players can cause significant damage when acting without constraint, a lesson several great powers are currently learning for the umpteenth time.

It's very meathead schoolyard bully coded to think that anarchy benefits you just because you happen to be the biggest dude around. It speaks more to the intellect of current leaders than it does to some fundamental contradiction.

▲

scoofy 13 minutes ago | parent [-]

I've updated the language there a bit, but the meaning is the same.

>There's a fairly good case to be made that playing by, and being able to set, international norms is in the long term benefit of powerful countries.

Yes, but it doesn't matter. The entire concept of truly sovereign states existing is the point. The second a state wants to leave the agreement, they just stop cooperating. There is no "greater sovereign" with which you can enforce these rules, and if there is -- say, a bigger country invading a smaller country to enforce the rules -- you're once again in a state of war, and none of the rules mattered in the first place.

	▲	matherial 7 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I think it was sort of meant to be a check on the middle powers: sure, you could do some war / genocide, but we have a legitimately-sounding system of rules by which superpowers can punish you. In practice, superpowers don't apply these rules consistently because it's sometimes in their geopolitical interest for a subjectively less-bad option to win by any means necessary, and they don't hold themselves to the same standard... so yeah, it does end up being a bit of a fantasy.