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.
Joining the ICC has no upside for this country since it simply enforces its will upon the world directly. Why would the empire limit its own ability to commit war crimes for nothing in return? The US government can label any action it disagrees with as terrorism and act unilaterally.
For the record, I think the US should be a member of the ICC, but we're not, and the US Congress passed a law many years ago instructing the executive branch to protect US servicemembers from the ICC. That's just the legal reality.
The usage of "legal" in this thread is highly misleading: partly erroneous and partly just a red herring. You are right about the USA national law, but that's the red herring part, because it is irrelevant in this international context with sovereign states and the ICC as parties. As far as the ICC is concerned (or rather international law and the treaty, the Rome Statute, which established the ICC) the suspected crimes were committed on party territory (Afghanistan; but also Poland, Romania and Lithuania; the latter three hosted the CIA black sites where prisoners were taken) and the USA government is not willing to prosecute themselves; so the ICC's purpose is to prosecute them.
That's why I called Llimos' position pseudo-legalist. (And also because the ICC is not a "private court" any more than the SCOTUS is a "private court".)
On the other hand, the USA is a sovereign state and its government is presumably in a position to ignore the international tribunal. This is the might part, which some are equating with a legally nonexistent right.
I don't know what exactly makes the USA different in this regard to some other relatively democratic state that finds its military and government under investigation by an international tribunal. It's surely got to do something with USA's might (power the US government is able to project across the world, e.g. sanctions) and worldwide reputation; but I think public opinion within the (democratic) country in conflict with the ICC is also hugely relevant in such cases, thus I'd say the US voters don't care about democracy or justice enough (otherwise the US politicians wouldn't dare do this, or pass the relevant laws).
For a comparison, I doubt there is currently an European internationally recognized state besides Russia and, maybe, Belarus whose governing politicians would dare defy something like the ICC; and sanctions by any state other than the USA would also carry much less weight.
Taking another look at the top-level comment, another thing that is visible in it apart from fake legalism is the "if it is legal, it is right", or, alternatively, "if it is within my might, it is right" point of view. That, too, is horrible; I guess I just didn't notice it consciously before.
But I think it's still correct to say that the US is not legally beholden to the ICC, just as any other country not party to the Rome Statute is not. It's a voluntary thing, and there are plenty of countries in the world with less might than the US that are non ICC members. If Rome Statute signatories could just flat-out decide what and what is not legal for everyone, that wouldn't be a great outcome for the concept of sovereignty.
> I'd say the US voters don't care about democracy or justice enough (otherwise the US politicians wouldn't dare do this, or pass the relevant laws).
I think that's an uncharitable view that paints with a way-too-broad brush. Mine is that US citizens do generally care about these things, but don't trust the idea of a foreign body having oversight in criminal matters. Sure, there almost certainly is some subset that believes that "those terrorists deserve what they get", and believe that due process should go out the window whenever someone utters the magic phrase "national security", and that's shameful.
> the suspected crimes were committed on party territory (Afghanistan; but also Poland, Romania and Lithuania; the latter three hosted the CIA black sites where prisoners were taken)
This is also interesting, though: has the ICC been investigating, and potentially prosecuting individuals in, Poland, Romania, and Lithuania for their part in allowing this stuff to happen on their soil? If not, why not? Seems like it would make sense for them to concentrate where the targets of potential prosecution are actually within their jurisdiction, no?
I agree that "if it is within my might, it is right" is reprehensible, but I don't think that explains the situation fully. I think it's reasonable to disagree with the ICC's implementation, and to want nothing to do with it, even if its intended mission is an honorable one.
While this is true they certainly also don't have an obligation to attack individuals, who happen to work for the court.
That's just a totally underhanded shit move of a bully and, I strongly suspect, it's red meat for a certain segment of voters.
No matter how you look at it. This move is fucking disgusting.
So what?
If there's no jurisdiction there's no obligation to start with.
Case in point: China has made it illegal worldwide to criticize what they're doing in Hong Kong[1]. That doesn't mean you have to listen to them if you're in a country that doesn't care.
[1]: https://www.axios.com/china-hong-kong-law-global-activism-ff...
The US has no such treaty with Afghanistan, and is not a party to the ICC.
Whether or not the US should cooperate with the ICC is another matter, but the US has no legal or diplomatic obligation to do so. And in fact the US executive branch is required by US law to actively thwart ICC action against US servicemembers[1].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_extradit...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Internat...
America is getting away with its war crimes and crimes against humanity, simply because there isn't a system by which it can have its obligations not to murder millions of people enforced by external force. Yet. That day may change, one can only hope ..
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.
The US had the power to establish before committing war crimes, that it does not want to be investigated (acting lawfully but immorally), while any other criminal would not have the power to plan ahead and could only try to escape justice after having committed a crime (acting immorally and unlawfully).
So what I am saying is: Nobody cares about acting lawfully when it comes to war crimes. Especially not, when you base your dominance on your fantasy of a moral high ground.
That's demonstrably incorrect, and we're talking about this exact counterexample. You're saying that the US has acted immorally (which I agree with!) while simultaneously saying the US is legally responsible, which it is not. That right there suggests that morality and law are not aligned, and that there is sometimes quite a big difference between the two.
The Nazis acted "lawfully" under their jurisdiction, but because the laws themself were unjust, it is widely recognized that they in fact did not act lawfully and so they have been trialed for it. It's called "legal positivism". The concept means, that there is in fact no difference between "law" and "moral", when it comes to war crimes. Ironically, it was the US, which established that concept.
And I absolutely agree that we can say that some countries do things that are entirely consistent with their own laws, that we will nevertheless judge to be immoral. The US is sadly no stranger to this phenomenon.
But again... what's the point? My original comment was simply addressing the legality of the situation. The US has no legal requirement to cooperate with the ICC, and has enough clout on the international stage to maintain that position. When it comes to international relations, "law" isn't the same thing as what it is between a government and its citizens. International "law" can only be enforced either through the consent of those who are party to it, or through economic or military might.
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'.
The US is not part of the Italian legal system, and yet when CIA officials were in Italy, and committed crimes in Italy, and were convicted by an Italian court for those crimes in absentia, is anyone questioning that?
* https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/world/europe/05italy.html
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case
The crimes were committed in a country that gave jurisdiction to the court.
> 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?
If the prosecuted countries/people committed crimes in the jurisdictions of those non-democracies, yes it would have the right.
The crimes were allegedly occurred in Afghanistan, and the ICC has jurisdiction in Afghanistan because Afghanistan gave it.
> The ICC lacks universal territorial jurisdiction, and may only investigate and prosecute crimes committed within member states, crimes committed by nationals of member states, or crimes in situations referred to the Court by the United Nations Security Council.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court
If the alleged crimes happened in Somalia, which is a non-member / non-signatory (AFAICT), then the ICC would have no jurisdiction.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_parties_to_the_Rome_Sta...
Also, more than 100 states out of 167 are democracies, so majority of states are democracies.
They're not.
The current https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index lists 22 "full democracies", 64 "flawed democracies" and 24 "hybrid regimes".
22+64 = 86
86/167 = 51.5%
less than 100 states are democracies
Whether they are a majority or not is irrelevant to what lazyjones said.
86 + 24 = 110 > 100
More than 100 states are democracies.
I can't think of a single real democracy that isn't deeply flawed except for Switzerland.
I get to vote on what I believe is right on every issue, instead of getting tricked by politicians who have positions that they later compromise on.
This actually nothing to do with being a direct democracy. You still have an executive cabinet selected by (but not responsible to) parliament. It's just that every member of the executive is selected by the parliament, instead of the parliament selecting a leader who picks the rest.
> I get to vote on what I believe is right on every issue, instead of getting tricked by politicians
You can still get tricked by politicians. America has very many citizens-initiated referenda, but it cannot be said to have improved their democratic outcomes.
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.)
(Click saver for others, the members:
1. Ms. Tania María Abdo Rocholl Paraguay 2017–2020
2. Mr. Yadh Ben Achour Tunisia 2019-2022
3. Ms. Ilze Brands Kehris Latvia 2017–2020
4. Mr. Christopher Arif Bulkan Guyana 2019-2022
5. Mr. Ahmed Amin Fathalla Egypt 2017–2020
6. Mr. Shuichi Furuya Japan 2019–2022
7. Mr. Christof Heyns South Africa 2017–2020
8. Mr. Hernán Quezada Cabrera Chile 2019–2022
9. Mr. Bamariam Koita Mauritania 2017–2020
10. Ms. Marcia. V. J. Kran Canada 2017–2020
11. Mr. Duncan Laki Muhumuza Uganda 2019–2022
12. Ms. Photini Pazartzis Greece 2019–2022
13. Ms. Vasilka Sancin Slovenia 2019–2022
14. Mr. José Manuel Santos Pais Portugal 2017–2020
15. Mr. Yuval Shany Israel 2013–2020
16. Ms. Hélène Tigroudja France 2019–2022
17. Mr. Gentian Zyberi Albania 2019–2022
18. Mr. Andreas B. Zimmermann Germany 2018–2020 )
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.
If you speak of the western world, the main reason for peace is the construction of the european union, creating much more cooperation between countries that had always been fighting each other.
US foreign policy is not driven by peace, freedom or whatever propanganda created to have people's support but by self-interest. It's the same for any country.
I'll buy that argument as long as Americans stay inside their own borders. When you choose to enter another country you are subject to their laws whether you agree with them or not. Afghanistan has signed on to the ICC and the activities being investigated took place in Afghanistan.
Having said that I don't expect US policy to change on this issue regardless of who wins the next election. Letting US soldiers be tried for war crimes is bad politics.
When a US citizen is in another country, they are under the power of the courts of that other country. Why is this so hard to understand?
The US military members, when in Afghanistan, are subject to Afghanistan courts jurisdiction—one of those courts is the ICC because Afghanistan gave the ICC jurisdiction by signing the treaty.
When the CIA operatives were in Italy they were under the jurisdiction of the Italian courts and were thus so convicted:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case
If you do not want to be under the jurisdiction of non-US courts then do not leave the US. Once you step over the border you have to follow the rules of the other country.
Have you had a look at American foreign policy last eight decades?
> and if you don’t like it start building a military to rival ours.
Yeah, that sounds totally like what peace and democracy loving entity would say.
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.
And the US still refuses to pay those reparations.
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.