Just goes to show how short-sighted these political decisions have been. Politics shouldn't be wrapping itself around tech, the US is shrugging off a huge market and ally.
Keep the chocolate separate from the artificial sweeteners.
Whatever our deal is with the EU and individual European countries, the ICC is emphatically not an EU nor even a European court. They’re hosted in The Hague, it is not of The Hague in the same way the UN is not of New York.
Which political decision? The one to prosecute a US ally, or the one to sanction the ICC?
When someone decries something as "politics," there's often a problem where the analysis conveniently stops when the blame can be placed on the speaker's disfavored group.
Claims about "helping the world" are highly subjective and often bullshit (see the often-mocked tech company talk about "making the world a better place [by doing awful stuff like shoving targeted ads in people's faces]".
> If the ICC is doing so much harm to the US, fight legally. That's where the battle should be fought. Not ripping away some guy's email access.
What do you mean? Sanctions are "fight[ing] legally," literally.
What's the problem with that? Ultimately, that's what all law is. Law doesn't work unless the lawgiver has the power to force its will on whomever it deems to be a lawbreaker.
The ICC's problem here is that it tried to exert control where it has no power, inviting retaliation.
Intrinsically, nothing, as long we remember the amoral nature of the whole thing. That what you say is true has nothing to do (in either direction) with its consequences being good in my, your, or anybody else’s conception of goodness; each one of us will have to evaluate that completely independently.
It seems you are making the point that using technology to punish subjective politics is the right way?!
Sidenote: ICC has been backed by many nations, occasionally including US too. Using sanctions in retributions to unfavourable opinions might seem against the spirit of US Constitution in other contexts...
Why not let arguments do their work in open debate? The ICC isn't a bunch of loonies or Saddam's Baath party. These are reasonable people, with dissident opinions, for sure. But reasonable.
> Sanctions are "fight[ing] legally," literally.
Technically, the more appropriate term might be "legalism", in the mechanistic sense.
Well, that happened. Israel presented an argument that the investigation legally must end, as they haven't consented to ICC jurisdiction; the ICC openly considered and openly rejected this argument (https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-p...), saying that Palestine's consent was sufficient because the alleged crimes took place in Palestinian territory.
The US has always taken an extremely aggressive stance that this theory of ICC jurisdiction is unacceptable. "It is a fundamental principle of international law that a treaty is binding upon its parties only and that it does not create obligations for nonparties without their consent to be bound", as 22 USC §7421 puts it. (If you're old enough, you may recognize this as part of the bipartisan "Hague Invasion Act" of 2002, widely understood as a threat of military force against anyone who tries to enforce ICC jurisdiction on a citizen of the US or its non-ICC allies.)
Its a little more complicated than that. The dispute is also about if palestine is a "state" and thus able to consent (and i'm not sure, but possibly what the territorial extent of Palestine is. it probably doesnt matter, but the fact that the official government of Palestine lost control of the gaza strip in a civil war a long time ago is another winkle in this whole thing)
While the court initially rejected Israel's challenge, the appeal court reverses the decision, and threw it back to the lower court, which is now deliberating on it https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-appea... . As far as i understand most observers think this is an extreme long shot on the part of Israel and they are unlikely to win this challenge.
[IANAL, and far from an expert at this, this stuff is complicated, it is very possible i got the details wrong]
The 2002 withdrawal was clearly to sidestep prosecution for the lies that led to Iraq's invasion.
US was okay with ICC until those human right high horse stuff could apply to US...
I guess so I was saying, is that US might have been a signatory. In spirit, US has often advocated for applying rules of international humanitarian law where appropriate.
Treaties like NATO, NAFTA, or various "coalitions of the willing" were never backed by a majority of the worlds population. (Maybe an agreement between China and India, might count?).
I think the point isn't that US never believed in multilateralism - it did - but that it feels rules and laws should only apply to others.
> It seems you are making the point that using technology to punish subjective politics is the right way?!
My point was to not trust claims that so-and-so is "helping the world," is a vague but positive description that is abused and often collapses on further scrutiny (especially because the speaker may have different subjective interests, what's "helping the world" to him can be "harming the world" to you).
Your response was weird. I was talking about something that I specified clearly, but you took it as I was speaking about something else.
> Using sanctions in retributions to unfavourable opinions might seem against the spirit of US Constitution in other contexts...
No. What are you smoking?
> Why not let arguments do their work in open debate? The ICC isn't a bunch of loonies or Saddam's Baath party. These are reasonable people, with dissident opinions, for sure. But reasonable.
Ok then. I claim authority over you and your friends, but you never consented. I'm not a loony, why don't you recognize my authority over you and engage with me in open debate?
That's "why not."
More generally, part of the envisioned role of the ICJ is that it could be a court system where countries can go to solve any disputes about how to interpret any treaty (however the rules are both parties have to consent, which means in practise it rarely happens)
ICC is about criminal liability of individuals, which sometimes has bearing on international politics but is not intrinsically so.
US isn't really a party to all this, so there isn't much they can do legally (to be clear i think americas sanctions are unacceptable). They could file a juridsictional challenge, which some countries did, but legally there isn't a huge amount of ground to stand on for that.
Other than that, the actual legal part doesn't start until (if) the suspects are apprehended. And if it does get to a trial, its going to be the accused lawyers who are going to be fighting it out.
What's legally questionable, is for ICC to claim jurisdiction over Israel - a nation that never signed to or ratified the ICC statue.
They do not claim that.
What they claim: - palestine is a state (probably the most controversial claim)
- states have the right to punish crimes that happen in their borders regardless of who commits them
- states can delegate that right to other parties
- Palestine delegated that right to the ICC.
Additionally from an international law perspective, there is the idea that some things are preemptorary norms which apply to all states. This includes things like parts of the geneva convention or the genocide convention that define certain crimes. Based on the precedent at nuremburg, an international body can setup a tribunal to punish those crimes even against the will of the state in question. The ICC doesnt use this but its fairly well established doctribe in intl law.
You do realize the precedent at Nuremberg (note the spelling), requires that the the capitulation of the party being tried? Famously, at the trial of admiral Dönitz, the defense presented an affidavit from admiral Chester Nimitz, where he confessed to the same crimes Dönitz was being tried for. Dönitz was convicted, but the court declined to try Nimitz because the United States was on the winning side and thus outside of the jurisdiction of the court.
You can't impose a tribunal on a country, without capitulation.
You don't have to imagine it, it's happening. Is it happening to judges in your country, though?
I understand in the pretend world they want to be able to do $x without ever worrying about being beholden to any other countries laws or politics or whatever else.
They want this for lots of values of $x, and often have fun asserting it will soon be possible.
In the real world however, this has never been possible, since the dawn of recorded history, for lots and lots and lots of values of $x.
Pretty much any time $x becomes valuable or interesting enough, it becomes impossible to have this happen in all and usually most cases.
It often doesn't matter how simple a thing $x is - sailing a ship for example, or buying produce, it usually only matters how valuable or interesting it was.
As long as enough countries exist, and they have laws that have extra-territorial effect, the likelihood this problem will be really solved trends towards zero.
What exactly does someone expect to happen here when it's just people and companies trying to follow the laws they think they are required to follow.
This is actually what should happen, and is happening
The usual response is then that some country or group of countries need to build some untouchable-by-other-countries infrastructure and that will solve having to deal with others politics. This seems to me naive at best. The only cases this will work is for things that can be 100% contained and controlled within a given country/group. That is roughly impossible for most interesting things.
For example - it makes no sense to have a economic-block-specific email provider to work around sanctions, because whoever wanted to sanction them will just ban transiting email to them, and then transiting packets, and then equipment, and then chips to make equipment, and then machines to make chips to make equipment, and then wafers used to make chips, and then raw resources used to make wafers, and then equipment to mine raw resources, and then ....
Let's assume you don't care about this group, but they are still powerful. Great - they'll do this not just directly, but indirectly, by forcing others who do have to care to do the same to you.
Now, it would be different if you are building this thing as a political move or strategy, rather than expecting it to solve your problem directly. But otherwise, it is remarkably rare to be able to work around the politics with technology, and if you do, you won't be able to for very long.
It's much more useful to focus on dealing with the politics, if you want to change it.
Wasting lots of time and energy and money trying to avoid politics seems like a bad plan