That being said, I don't like when this kind of issues are politicized ("Obama destroyed America", "Trump sucks on all issues", ...). So I looked up the numbers.
The US congress and senate passed a law, in 2002, that gave the president authority to "with all means necessary, prohibit the International Criminal Court from seeking to exercise jurisdiction over United States persons, and allied persons"
https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2002328
Votes by party
Republican YEAS: 201 NAYS: 18
Democratic YEAS: 195 NAYS: 13
Doesn't seem to be a "current administration" issue only. Clearly the US was caught up in the post-9/11 panic at the time of passing this law. But it seems a good idea to repeal it - if there is no longer a majority in support of it.
Anyway, The bill didn't specify the means, so the means are a part of policy. Sanctioning these type of individuals is a bully move. This administration has picked a strategy of being a bully.
It's as much politics on the ICC side as on the USA side.
For years, the ICC had only prosecuted former warlords from African countries. Only the loosing sides, the criminals that won national power were usually ignored, as the recent Ivory Coast shows. So some African leaders protested and even removed their country from the ICC. So the court had to react, at least to show an intention even if a real prosecution is totally unrealistic. So the ICC Prosecutor — which is the former Ministry of Justice of the Gambia dictator — launched inquiries about crimes by security forces of Myanmar (Birmania), Israel, USA… It's mostly a symbolic gesture.
While I agree that ideally we shouldn't have international cooperation based on power and submission, I don't think your depiction of post and pre-WWs mentality is accurate. The post-WWs mentality is even greater form of power and submission than pre-WWs. Pax Americana is pretty much the US ( and by extension the anglo world ) dominating everyone else. For example, more nations today have foreign troops ( predominantly american/anglo/western ) than during the pre-wws colonial era.
Trump is trying to preserve the post-wws world order, the ICC is trying to bring it back to pre-wws world order. Do you want america ruling the world ( post-wws ) or a collection of international powers ( pre--wws )? There are pros and cons to both.
... δυνατὰ δὲ οἱ προύχοντες πράσσουσι καὶ οἱ ἀσθενεῖς ξυγχωροῦσιν.[3]
[1] In another few centuries they'll probably be lumped together as the 31 years war or something.
[2] not all of which was bad. Afterwards, unlike the Bourbons, my country kept the best changes (e.g. the law code) and got rid of the worst (e.g. the french running things).
[3] If JFK were alive today, I bet he'd have half a mind to call these sanctions a dick move.
A large majority of people consider that in fact it is WORLD WAR THREE that was started by the US and its allies in 2003.
It just hasn't hit Western shores yet.
They literally have a casus belli to invade the netherlands.
To be honest, I do not find this to be that absurd. The only bad thing about this is that the US is not willing to punish their own war criminals.
> This administration is shattering any form of international cooperation not based on power and submission
The only other two things that I can think of are the withdrawal from UNESCO and from WHO (this one was justified IMO), do you have anything else in mind?
> To be honest, I do not find this to be that absurd.
What? This is the definition of absurdity.
Now more than ever, I'm quite certain that almost all countries in the world would jump on any opportunity to get rid of this currency influence.
The world will resume, and so will the progress, and it’ll happen here on Earth unless we choose to do it elsewhere, not because it’s easy but because it’s the only place there is.
Both are power moves. Do you think they're the same thing though?
Yes, power is good way to bootstrap cooperation based on trust. This is a much more effective form of cooperation as you waste less energy on paranoia and watching over your back. You can also base cooperation on submission but then you have to constantly be at an all out war to protect your regime. Much less efficient or reasonable.
Buried right at the bottom of the article: "the US is not a party to the international tribunal".
Now, you can say they should be. But they're not. So if you look at it from a purely impartial and dispassionate standpoint, the court shouldn't get any special treatment - and the US would be entitled to take such actions against any other foreign group that set itself up and issued threats. It's like me setting up my own private court and then coming to arrest you.
The fact that most other countries are part of it may make a moral case for the US to join but not a legal one, which means that, again looking dispassionately, the US is entitled to do this.
But even if it's true, that's not something that obligates the US to play ball. They don't have any obligations to the Court.
The fact that the ICC counts many nations as members certainly makes it feel like the US should cooperate on moral/ethical grounds, but it has no legal requirement to do so.
Let's take a hypothetical scenario. The majority of UN member states are not democracies. If all of these non-democracies would set up a court, with the legitimacy of 'the majority of UN members', would they automatically have the right to prosecute the other countries?
'Legitimacy' is a moral concept. The legal concept that matters is 'jurisdiction'.
Having members in common with the UN does not automatically give it legitimacy. The UN does some good things, and does some things that are to give tinpot third-world dictators a chance to look respectable. The efforts involving the second are fine for trying to nudge countries into being more like the normal world, but should not be given any real authority over anything.
The question is, which camp does the ICC fall into? That question tells how much legitimacy it has as a court. (And I don't know the answer, so I'm not going to give one. All I'm saying is "It's like the UN" doesn't make it legitimate, at all.)
The highest court in the US is the supreme court and every court any of us can be subjected to is under it. The ICC has no sovereignty over the US. Our foreign policy with regards to international law is to support it having sovereignty over others but not ourselves, the world peace enjoyed for the past eight decades or so is a direct result of American hegemony and if you don’t like it start building a military to rival ours.
There is a power imbalance on purpose which results in a little injustice and a big lack of armed conflict.
The US signed the Rome Statute, but never ratified it.
Once a country ratifies the statute, it's in until a year after it gives notice to quit. And, even then, quitting has no effect on investigations already in progress.
prevents cooperation, extradition, etc and authorizes actions to protect citizens from the court
(https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/4775)
> Title II: American Servicemembers' Protection Act - American Servicemembers' Protection Act of 2002 - Prohibits U.S. cooperation with the International Criminal Court. ...
> (Sec. 2008) Authorizes the President to use all means necessary (including the provision of legal assistance) to bring about the release of covered U.S. persons and covered allied persons held captive by, on behalf, or at the request of the Court.
Have the UN set up a trial commission whenever there is need to prosecute someone internationally.
No need to have it wander around on geopolitically volatile fishing expeditions when they have nothing to do.
China has not signed the ICC, and so the ICC has no jurisdiction with-in China (including HK). Afghanistan has signed the ICC treaty, so the ICC has jurisdiction with-in Afghanistan.
The alleged crimes occurred with-in Afghanistan.
If the alleged crimes occurred with-in Somalia, which is not an ICC member, the ICC could not investigate.
When you go to another country, you are bound by the laws of that country while you are with-in that country.
[1] As a naval power, the british were also fond of economic sanctions.
[2] which would not necessarily have been a bad thing: a british North America would have ended slavery sooner with much less bloodshed.
