And to add on to JumpCrisscross, ICC warrants are only valid in countries that are currently member states of the ICC [0], though countries will gladly turn the other eye depending on mutual interests (eg. Narendra Modi's close relationship with Japan, France, Singapore, UAE, and Israel because they didn't enforce US travel sanctions on him when he was CM of Gujarat in the 2000s).

Notably, the US is NOT a signatory of the ICC (this was a whole thing in the Iraq War days).

[0] - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ICC_member_states.sv...

For folks interested in this process, take a look at the ICC proceedings against Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman [1] regarding war crimes in Darfur.

[1]: https://www.icc-cpi.int/darfur/abd-al-rahman

Also the Frontline documentary from 2019 about Ratko Mladić's trial [0]

(Edit: I'm a dummy, this was the ICTY, not the ICC, but the ICTY was the precursor model of the ICC in the aftermath of the Yugoslav Wars).

[0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJh8fuaqslo

I don't think this is relavent to the complementary principle.

If the israeli judicial system made a good faith attempt to prosecute this crime following the standards of international law, it would probably prevent this warrant even though Israel is not a party to the court.

It kind of gives the game away when you see that the US is not a signatory but had a big say in appointing the Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan in 2021 and have instituted the "Invade the Hague Act" that would allow the US to invade the Hague if they were to prosecute any American personnel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...

The Biden admin cooperated with the ICC, specifically quietly handing documents to the ICC that details Putin's war crimes and urging them to submit arrest warrants for Putin. Notably Russia is also not a signatory of the ICC, so there is definitely precedent for this process that even has had the backing of the US.

IMO Khan's speech today really speaks for itself. The "International Rule of Law" is nothing but a joke if we don't not apply it equally and blindly that will ultimately lead to the degradation of modern society and our species. I highly urge people to go and check out his speech on the matter and to form your own opinion.

International rule of law is a joke.

“Rule of law” means all people are equal before the law.

It’s hard to pull off. Some nations have, most haven’t.

But Chairman Xi isn’t going to face charges for his crimes against Uyghurs.

Most countries have no rule of law, and internationally, none do.

The international in international law should give you a hint as to why it doesn't apply to the Uyghurs.

There is precedent for the ICC [1], I believe a majority of all the ICC convictions were actually charging individuals committing crimes against their own people without crossing state lines.

The fact that China gets away with its treatment of the Uyghurs (and plenty of other major powers that technically break ICC laws) is definitely an example of how much international law is a farce, though they aren't getting around the ICC by staying within their own borders.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_indicted_in_t...

>The "International Rule of Law" is nothing but a joke if we don't not apply it equally and blindly that will ultimately lead to the degradation of modern society and our species.

Part of the "Rule of Law" is enforcement of that law. Who could realistically enforce it against the US? How about China?

Rule of Law requires you first establish monopoly on violence via global hegemony. If you are willing to accept some kind of global state where individual nations have lost sovereignity then okay, but if not what ends up happening is you limit your own actions while your enemies (who don't care for such rules) can walk free to do whatever.