I guess what he is saying is that work of International Criminal Court is a threat to US sovereignty ? Can someone make that make sense?
That is the 'International rules-based order' as opposed to the U.N. international law order.
?? Not sure. Can you provide examples of condemning for war crimes those and other regimes in the current times? I may be wrong, but I am getting the vibe of "free for all until somebody bigger shouts that's enough" - more clearly, I am not seeing ethical stances defended.
--
Edit: thanks Newjazz for the reply. Did not notice, I thought they just decided "free for all". Yes, that makes it more appalling - shameless.
Honest question, what makes you think the US, China, or Russia need to abide by legal agreements made 80 years ago by people who aren't around anymore? Those three countries have since agreed amongst themselves that the 'international rules-based order' was a mistake, and nobody else has a big enough stick to do anything about it.
The 'international rules-based order' is used today by the U.S. to imply to a naive reader that they mean international law as defined by the UN, whereas in fact they mean the world order where they're the world police, which essentially started after WWII and really kicked into another gear in the 90s when the U.S became the undisputed dominant power.
The phrase today is used merely as a ploy to suggest the U.S. is not acting alone/without UN approval in cases it in fact does precisely that.
> Honest question, what makes you think the US, China, or Russia need to abide by legal agreements made 80 years ago by people who aren't around anymore?
I dunno. I would like things like the Geneva Conventions to outlive their original authors, thank you very much.
As an aside, I don't think China's foreign policy can be casually compared to that of the U.S.
Why do you need help? It's obvious. The dictionary definition of sovereignty is "supreme power especially over a body politic" and "freedom from external control : autonomy sense 1." If the ICC has power over the US government or can externally control it (for instance by arresting its leaders), it is a straightforwardly impinges on US sovereignty.
By your logic, every other country "impinges on US sovereignty" because they can arrest US citizens within their own borders.
Trump has claimed exactly that several different times.
for some reason that's offended the US, who then proceeds to extra-judiciously impose their will on citizens of other sovereign nations who aren't even in the US.
so who is coloring outside the lines here?
I don't know what planet you live on but this hasn't been true for the better half of the last century.
If America stood for any of the principles it claims to, the servicemembers and their commanders who performed them would be held to account for them.
One can be blamed on fog of war, the other is straight up murder, and all involved need to be prosecuted as such.