undefined | Better HN

0 pointsrkeene22mo ago0 comments

You are talking about a after a country has decided that they want to participate in the this process by ratifying their participation intentionally. How does this relate to a unilateral invasion ?

0 comments

tguvot2mo ago

Vienna Convention (1961): This treaty standardized the rules, making diplomatic immunity a binding obligation for its over 190 signatory nations

And then comes ICC (via Rome statue, ratified by 125 countries and half a dozen of them in process of withdrawal) and trashes with it warrants diplomatic immunity.

So in case international law/treaty from 1961 is all of sudden not binding, why wouldn't uniliteral invasion (actually it looks like it more of arrest operation) (which is probably prohibited by some other international treaties) not be ok ?

rkeene2OP2mo ago

I do not understand the point you are making. You cite a treaty that countries explicitly agree to protect diplomats while they are guests in another country -- I'm not sure what relationship this has with one sovereign nation using force to rendition someone from another country.

The only country that has agreed to the terms of the ICC here is Venezuela -- but there is no ICC arrest warrant for anyone involved, nor is the US acting on behalf of the ICC nor does it have any authority to do so.

The invasion (which was required to perform the arrest, since it was within the territory) was definitely an invasion and morally wrong.

As noted several times, there are many ways that this could have been done that are in accordance with civil society it. It wasn't, and that is bad.

tguvot2mo ago

my point is that diplomatic immunity is international law. signatories to rome statue said that they will violate it (diplomatic immunity of Israeli head of state) because of icc warrant.

this is violation of international law that multiple countries openly stated that they will perform.

essentially it means that international law is not binding and selectively enforced. this is slippery slope.

if you can ignore vienna convention why not ignore whatever other part of international law that prohibits invasion ?

PS. UK and France just bombed ISIS in Syria. Is it also invasion and morally wrong ?

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

tguvot2mo ago

Vienna Convention (1961): This treaty standardized the rules, making diplomatic immunity a binding obligation for its over 190 signatory nations

And then comes ICC (via Rome statue, ratified by 125 countries and half a dozen of them in process of withdrawal) and trashes with it warrants diplomatic immunity.

rkeene2OP2mo ago

The invasion (which was required to perform the arrest, since it was within the territory) was definitely an invasion and morally wrong.

As noted several times, there are many ways that this could have been done that are in accordance with civil society it. It wasn't, and that is bad.

tguvot2mo ago

my point is that diplomatic immunity is international law. signatories to rome statue said that they will violate it (diplomatic immunity of Israeli head of state) because of icc warrant.

this is violation of international law that multiple countries openly stated that they will perform.

essentially it means that international law is not binding and selectively enforced. this is slippery slope.

if you can ignore vienna convention why not ignore whatever other part of international law that prohibits invasion ?

PS. UK and France just bombed ISIS in Syria. Is it also invasion and morally wrong ?

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse