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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court