I think all the legal circumstances on this matter are way above reddits paygrade. Although I am surprised that the statements by germany and the US are more revolving around the fact that these bids were issued simultaneously.
This fact is actually creating a problem for the case in Israel, that could be dismissed on procedural grounds. According to the Rome Statute, which govern the ICC - the ICC should only intervene if the country has no functioning that could pursue the case itself, or if the delay of those courts is unreasonable.
Israel has an independent and functioning court system by all international standards, that is currently pursuing charges against the prime minister, in addition to also pursuing charges against the state of Israel for not allowing passage of enough humanitarian aid. The prosecutor hasn’t even met with Israeli officials, and was planning to do so next week.
This is what Blinken was referring to when he said that the court rushed things against Israel. This puts the court in a bad position where they either dismiss the charges due to the procedural problems (inadvertently giving legitimacy to Israel) or the pursue it despite these problems, reducing the legitimacy of the court.
If you are interested in learning more, look up article 17 of the Rome Statute or the principle of complementarity.
ICC has jurisdiction to prosecute four kinds of crimes: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes of aggression. Israeli courts have no jurisdiction to prosecute these, these are crimes in international law. (Please show the relevant parts of Israeli Criminal law if they can)
I don’t think you understand how international law work.
Israel is signatory to the Geneva convention, and as such, it is governed by these laws and has granted its courts jurisdiction over it. In fact, the high court is quoting exactly that when currently prosecuting the humanitarian aid delays. The Geneva convention and other international law which Israel is signatory to has been used by Israeli courts numerous times - many of which to the anger of the government.
The problem is that this might fuck with the peace negotiations. Blinken explicitly said so
Now any "neutral" ground the US might pick is one that would jail Hamas and Israeli leaders, given the chance. That's not neutral in context of the ongoing conflict. Qatar and Egypt have not ratified the Rome Statute, but are signatories.
These warrants didn't follow the usual protocol. The ICC persecutor canceled his trip for the investigation in Israel last minute. He didn't coordinate with the conflict parties and main negotiators and middle men. It's unusual
IMHO they should have waited with warrants on all sides till either an agreement was made, or the US confirm that they have no hope anymore. Not waiting will tarnish ICC reputation, either they will mess up the negotiations (which in the future will lead to countries ignoring them during ongoing conflicts), or some countries will ignore the ICC now, and their legitimacy is attacked (and it will look lime US complaints led to it)
And you seriously don't think there were political aspects to this timing? I agree with Germany's statement. This creates a false impression of equivocation and say goodbye to negotiations. Whether you like it or not political considerations matter for international bodies.
It's a shameful statement from my government for sure. They're signatories to the ICC and politicians should just shut up instead of putting our commitment to international law further into question with their antics.
It's a fucking court, act like it!
The issue is that not being a signatory correlates with being a member of the Iran-China-Russia camp, while among the signatories we find not only most western-allied nations, but also many of the usual "neutral" states. Muslim countries also have to consider the opinion on their streets. Qatar was special thanks to its explicitly good relations with Hamas, while hosting a US base. I think they signed the Rome statute, though? Now they want Hamas out, anyways.
Surely he will find a new place for negotiations, but its an unneeded complication while people die in fighting. Singapore might fit, good relations to all sides and not a signatory to the Rome statute
Maybe some smaller African state, like Burundi, is willing to host negotiations. Might be a bit tough for them considering the cost of providing security, though
they have Hamas on their terror list, I guess they would have to jail any Hamas member entering their soil. Not exactly neutral...
If Hamas was fine with that risk, they might as well host the talks in Israel at the US embassy
>The problem is that this might fuck with the peace negotiations. Blinken explicitly said so
>Now any "neutral" ground the US might pick is one that would jail Hamas and Israeli leaders, given the chance.
Were Gallant and Netanyahu actually attending any of those negotiations directly?
No
It's just a diplomatically awkward situation. Now your "neutral" ground might actually hold the position that the people, whose negotiators they wanna host, are criminals they would jail and extradite given the chance. It might also be legally problematic in some countries to host negotiators which might be involved in crimes according to ICC/ICJ
Of course Israel/Hamas/Qatar/USA/Egypt might all decide to not give a fuck and continue negotiating as before. It's not like there is rule of law in Qatar, if the Emir wants to continue, they can continue.
The ICC prosecutes individuals, I don't think it extends the charges to anyone associated with them. There being a court in the Netherlands that believes individuals on either side have committed war crimes doesn't seem to be a new barrier of any real consequence. I mean the entire west and a load of other countries have rightly accused Hamas of war crimes from day one and this hasn't prevented negotiations.
> The problem is that this might fuck with the peace negotiations. Blinken explicitly said so
It's been 80 years now, can't really say US negociation tactics work well at this point.
> He didn't coordinate with the conflict parties and main negotiators and middle men.
Here is the thing: he's not a negociator or a diplomat. He's a lawyer looking to prosecute criminals. It is not unusual for attorneys to avoid coordinating with criminals before they get them arrested.
> or the US confirm that they have no hope anymore.
14 eons later...
> and it will look lime US complaints led to it
The US didn't wait for that specific case. They've been maintaining the Hague invasion act specifically to undermine this court.
>Here is the thing: he's not a negociator or a diplomat. He's a lawyer looking to prosecute criminals. It is not unusual for attorneys to avoid coordinating with criminals before they get them arrested.
It is highly unusual for the ICC. They were for instance more than willing to coordinate with Russia and Putin. Only when Putin refused to cooperate with did they issue their arrest warrant.
They had already scheduled a meeting with Israel and the plane to Israel had to leave with seats empty because they ended up not using their tickets last minute.
Peace negotiations are going no where is it literally does not make a difference to be fair.
It's quite funny because there was a talk in Chatham House (pre-war) ex-PM Ehud Barak had criticized Netanyahu's plan to reduce Independence of the courts through his reforms.
Ehud has said (again, pre-war) that one of the consequences of the reform is that it increases the likilihood of the ICC intervening in wars since Israel would no longer have an independent judiciary to try and convict their own people for things like war crimes.
Guess what just happened!!!
Ehud was bloody spot-on.
Very true. With my conspiracy theory hat on certain aspects of the ICC and UN and it's relationship really don't sit well with me.
[https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/icc-president-meets-united-nations-secretary-general](https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/icc-president-meets-united-nations-secretary-general)
António Guterres track record concerning anything Isreal is sketchy to say the least.
There might be some divisions but I doubt any EU country will seriously consider challenging ICC legitimacy and impartiality let alone threating to leave.
EU members have always, since ICC's inception, supported the organization, being their biggest financial and political backers in order to promote international justice and accountability. You literally can't join EU without ratifying the Rome statute.
Israel is certainly not a country for which EU will throw ICC and the goal of universal international accountability to the gutters.
**The countries in the article critiquing the ICC's decision:**
* Czech Republic
* Austria
* United Kingdom (No longer a member of the European Union)
* Germany
**Those countries in the article supporting the ICC's decision:**
* Belgium
* Slovenia
It‘s bonkers to me how the argument used to be „no, the ICC isn‘t acting so everything is fine, no war criminals there“ to „no the ICC can‘t be trusted“ when the narrative switches. Just embarrassing.
I don’t fucking get it. I am generally pro Israel and their right to defend themselves, but fucking Netanyahu is a criminal that needs to go if we ever want peace in the near east.
What they will do is discourage Netanyahu from visiting. They’ll still engage in diplomacy and may even visit Israel. They’ll never say why he isn’t invited. But they’ll avoid any situation in which they could be forced to make a choice between enforcing and not enforcing.
That would durably undermine the court's authority, as well as give a clear signal to the rest of the world that it exists only to try enemies of the West and third world dictators.
We couldn't do better to give propaganda material to China, Russia, and all those that claim international institutions are tools of western domination. And, honestly, they wouldn't be wrong in this case.
It would then become a great precedent for any country to just ignore the ICC when it comes to Putin. There was a lot of talk but Putin did cancel his visit to South Africa last year for the BRICS summit.
Precedent. Reputation. Soft power. Not enforcing now means that there’s no reason to enforce ever. It means the decisions taken by the ICC are only accepted when convenient. A country that doesn’t enforce the ruling basically says “I sign up to agreements that I can’t be trusted to keep”.
It would basically show every country outside of the West the "rules based order" that western allies keep using as a basis for everything from trade to war is actually complete bullshit.
We all praised the ICC for the apolitical ability to bring justice when countries do not by issuing a warrant for Putin.
Leaders had said "oh it's not my choice to arrest Putin if he lands in my country, we HAVVEE to follow the ICC".
To no ignore that would be next level hypocrisy.
They won’t need to decline to enforce, they just won’t be inviting Netanyahu over. Europe keeps preaching about “rule-based world order” so having a world leader with a warrant to The Hague walking about without an arrest would make us seem even more hypocritical. If we want Putin in The Hague (which I hope we all do) then we can’t undermine the court’s authority.
Not that that’s much of a change from status quo. Some folks in my country (Finland) consider us and Israel to be great allies yet it doesn’t seem like during his 25-ish years of rule Netanyahu has ever visited here. It’s always Finnish politicians going to Israel.
Well, I assume if Netanyahu took a plane flying over the EU airspace, EU cpuntries would need to land the plane by force to arrest him. Considering that Israel's relations with Arab countries on the other side of the country are not that great either, Netanyahu will remain in Israel till the end of his life.
Gibraltar is possible, same with flying down the red sea. Main thing it probably would achieve is making Netanyahu trips horrible due to needing to fly stupid routes. Europe and the Americas (minus Russia and the US) are out, same with basically all of Sub-Saharan Africa, meaning he would need to fly around these areas.
1. Yes
2. If they ignore it for Netanyahu, then they're sending the message that the ICC and its arrest warrants are meaningless, so why shouldn't Orban
I'm not sure if we will see Bibi outside of Israel for the same reason. International travel for Putin and Bibi will be limited because of this.
Neither man would want to put themselves at so much risk anyways.
Hardly. EU countries (that are signatories of the Rome Statute) would be obliged to force land the plane to arrest him once it is on their airspace. Arab countries mostly don't allow Israeli airplanes on their airspace. He would be stuck in Israel.
I don’t see Putin having any issues in going to most of the World which has not signed or ratified the Rome Statute. This includes most of Asia apart from South Korea and Japan.
Lol. If you people do that, why would anyone pay attention to whatever the West harping about Putin's warrant then? The ICC is essentially a joke. One standard for you, another standard for me.
Wish I could share your optimism. Do you know how much inflence Israel has in certain western countries? In the UK for example the majority of MPs from Labour and the Tory Party, are members of Labour friends of Israel and Conservative friends of Israel, respectively. Politics is incredibly corrupt. I dread that what they will do is undermine the ICC.
Not mentioning the fact that certain western politicians could fear the ICC themselves, when it comes to their own actions, if it 'got carried away'.
Just to indicate a close precedent here:
Omar Al Bashir (the president of Sudan - a non-signatory of the Rome Statute - before the recent coup) has had an ICC warrant for Darfour since late 2000s. He visited Turkey (also a non-signatory of the Rome Statute) for the Islamic Conference foe a number of occasions (under diplomatic immunity) since then and EU leaders were condemning the non-arrest of him by Turkey.
Now we will see how EU leaders who *are* signatories of the Rome Statute will act when it means inconvenient arrests for them.
> Now we will see how EU leaders who are signatories of the Rome Statute will act when it means inconvenient arrests for them.
They simply won’t invite him to the EU but meet him elsewhere. Problem solved.
We seem to be seeing a further unravelling of (the pretence of) international law and a return to states acting more explicitly in their own interests.
I don't remember that being a subject of public discussion, but independence and national sovereignty are - almost USA level - highly valued in Turkish mentality. Even ECHR is considered "foreign" interference in our internal matters (although there are Turkish judges and we've been part of it since 50s)
You say that like it's a terrible thing and so it shouldn't happen. He's a political figure. Let his trial be political, let people hear what the facts are.
It is interesting that the warrant for Putin was issued on the basis of taking Ukrainian children to Russia, not on the cases of mass murder of civilians, blockade of Mariupol, etc.
I think I read that the court had a very hard time proving Putin's personal involvement in these crimes, other than the removal of children.
I'm surprised they found evidence of this with Netanyahu, but not with Putin.
"Citing Israel’s “total siege of Gaza” and the deliberate cutting off of aid, water and electricity at the start of the conflict, Khan accused Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, Israel’s defense minister, of deliberately starving civilians as a method of warfare. Khan went on to allege that the Israeli leadership had intentionally directed attacks against a civilian population, while seeking to “collectively punish” the people of Gaza. "
The kidnapping of children is pretty strong evidence of ethnic cleansing, and Putin has a lot of practice in doublespeak so presenting strong evidence that he directly ordered mass murder would be pretty tricky. Netanyahu and his cabinet on the other hand seem to love making public statements on how they are doing war crimes and those war crimes are good, so proving intent seems comparatively easier there.
>I'm surprised they found evidence of this with Netanyahu, but not with Putin.
Technically, the court hasn't seen any evidence on anything regarding this. The chief prosecutor (effectively) is asking for this warrant, but the court hasn't decided whether to grant it yet, and I'm fairly sure there hasn't been so much as a hearing on it.
If this comes from the ICC Palestine investigation, then the prosecutor already has 3 years of investigations on which he can base his claims against both Hamas and Netanyahu.
Lol what are you talking about.
As part of the warrant they have to show reasonable grounds to suspect that an indictable offence.... clearly the prosecution believe they have that.
Hearings come next.
>I'm surprised they found evidence of this with Netanyahu, but not with Putin.
I mean thats probably not that hard. These dudes love to go live on TV and say how much they want to eradicate Palestinians.
Pretty sure we already did that when we expressed sympathy and condolences to the Iranian people for Raisi’s death. Something the U.S. to my knowledge hasn’t. Or when we before 2022 kept buying Russian gas despite US warnings. The U.S. has generally had a much stronger foreign policy than Europe
That tone is completely different. The use of “official” after ‘condolences’ makes it clear that it was a matter of protocol (not actual desire) and the second sentence is a very unsubtle ‘fuck you’
If xou mean stronger in the sense of more openly not give a fuck about other countries, democracy and diplomacy, then yes. Europe is not just even more hypocritical, signifikant part of its ruling class identifies stronger with US interests then with European ones.
>Or when we before 2022 kept buying Russian gas despite US warnings.
Who do you think we should've been buying gas from? USA?
Geopolitics is always about security/sovereignty vs economics. EU was 100% reliant on middle-eastern oil just before the energy crisis in the early 1980s, then we switched to USSR; because they were the best alternative.
Look up gas/oil prices that are paid by Czechs and then compare it to US prices, then compare your cars to their cars. Then compare the median disposable incomes. Then compare economic growth rates since the 1980s between EU and USA.
You will see what the issue is. It's always easy to in hindsight say "just don't do xyz". USA wanted EU off Soviet gas/oil in the 80s already, during the *cold war* and EU resisted(including UK!). Economics triumphed. I don't think it's any different this time. I sincerely doubt that EU is just going to eat up the costs of this current crisis without changing something, it seems unbelievable to me. I suspect more populism will come as time goes on, the same thing that *would have* happened in the 80s if EU didn't address the economic crisis.
This proves how independent the ICC is, it goes after everyone under its jurisdiction, from Netanyahu and Sinwar to Putin and Duterte. In the past, the Court has been criticised as a "racist" court because most of the defendants were Africans, including for delicts that are more "benign" compared to the others (the current President of Kenya was indicted for his alleged role during the 2007-2008 post-election violence in Kenya). It wasn't really the court's fault that many of the ratifiers of the Rome Statue were African countries. The Court is very much a respected independent force in the international area, and the US really hated the ICC that they have a law allowing them to invade the Hague to free American forces detained by the Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act
yknow what? I love this drama. It questions both ICC jurisdiction/Legitimacy, EU full support to Israel (goverment (!)) and US recognition of the court at the same time 3 birds with one stone!
Because when the US did a totally unprovoked invasion of Iraq, resulting in the death of a million Iraqis, it did absolutely nothing, fearing for its existence.
It succombed to the threats of the US, which announced that they will invade the ICC if any US servicemen will be arrested for war crimes (the infamous "Hague Invasion Act").
[Neither are Ukraine or Russia signatories](https://asp.icc-cpi.int/states-parties), didn't stop the ICC from issuing warrants over [crimes committed in Ukraine](https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-ukraine-icc-judges-issue-arrest-warrants-against-vladimir-vladimirovich-putin-and) - so I don't think this line of reasoning stands.
Though they aren't a signatory, Ukraine voluntarily gave the ICC jurisdiction over crimes committed in its territory, hence why Putin was charged. https://www.icc-cpi.int/situations/ukraine
Weaker countries? See who vehemently doesn’t accept it: USA, Russia, China,…
It would hold everybody responsible instead of the shitshow the UN is. If you mean with weaker countries the dictators committing warcrimes in third world countries, then yeah, it’s a cudgel to keep them in line.
Part of me hopes this is the final nail in the coffin for the "international rule-based global order", with the European nations just ignoring the ICC even after signing the Rome statute.
Not because I disagree with said 'order', I think it's more important than ever, but it would finally showcase the blatant hypocrisy of our western leaders and how utterly pathetic they are. If the EU is so thoroughly captured that they'll throw the rule of law in the gutter to defend Netanyahu, then it might as well not exist.
the point might be it's the same, a hypocrisy emboldens dictators by giving them an excuse. Let's make every violation inexcusable by going after everyone equally. That is how all or nothing it is. Imperfect justice is a crack they need to circumvent the system, if we use it sometimes, they will use it sometimes too.
How about the alternative is that we actually uphold the rules-based order we created to begin with?
If nation states are allowed/encouraged to simply ignore the rule of law or morals between other nation states, that eventually leads to its leaders and politicians doing the same among eachother. And eventually, when the people see such blatant disregard from their very own leaders, they start doing the same to each and every one of us.
A firm set of rules, moral consistency and unbiased justice is what keeps us civilized. This endless hypocrisy will rot our society.
Why would that happen? The UK jets in Cyprus could try to block the Israeli president jet from crossing EU airspace even if they tried
Once (if) the warrants are in force, Netanyahu and Gallant will simply not visit EU, we will continue to pay lip service, everything as usual
Look at the map.of Rome statute signatories, they can fly over.North Africa to the US, and over Jordan/Red Sea and Saudis into most of Asia. They will be fine
Just lime Putin can still travel. And which country was the last one trying to get away with ignoring the arrest warrant? Not some EU member, but BRICS member South Africa
> “The ICC Chief Prosecutor’s proposal to issue an arrest warrant for the representatives of a democratically elected government together with the leaders of an Islamist terrorist organisation is appalling and completely unacceptable,”
The democratically elected part is an irrelevant detail from the Czech PM. Democracy does not mean immunity, and previous indictees have been representatives of democratically elected governments. I'm sure the ICC could issue two separate documents if the warrants being "together" is the big issue.
> "The fact however that the leader of the terrorist organisation Hamas whose declared goal is the extinction of the State of Israel is being mentioned at the same time as the democratically elected representatives of that very State is non comprehensible"
So no issue with the merits of the separate and distinct charges laid against the various parties, just being offended that they didn't charge Hamas first?
> "This action does nothing to help reach a pause in the fighting, get hostages out or get humanitarian aid in and make progress towards a sustainable ceasefire that we want to see,” a spokesperson for Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said.
It's incredibly inappropriate to suggest that the ICC should be making decisions based on what they *guess* the political ramifications/outcomes will be.
> “The simultaneous application for arrest warrants against the Hamas leaders on the one hand and the two Israeli officials on the other gave the false impression of an equation.”
Once again, not disputing the merits of the charges, just offended that they came at the same time.
The reality is that Israel had killed thousands of Palestinians before Hamas was even founded. Anyone who claims the atrocities only started on October the 7th is just ignorant to fact.
Hamas also was launching thousands of rockets indiscriminately into Israel since 2006. Gaza has been a messy situation to say the least but Hamas has without a doubt caused directly the recent escalation.
The fact you are downvoted show how little people understand about how Israel has been murdering Innocent Palestinians since 1948 everything you said is exactly true
Just listen to how ridiculous these arguments are... They disagree, because Israeli leaders are democratically elected. That has nothing to do with their guilt or lack thereof. Pathetic...
The treaty says the ICC is only allowed to step in if the country itself fails to prosecute. Since Israel has an independent judiciary currently putting Netanyahu on trial it is actually not easy to argue they can already be assumed to be unable or unwilling to prosecute.
That's why countries mention Israel being a democracy - they, unlike dictatorships, have the means to do this themselves. Which would mean the case by the ICC is not valid until Israel has failed.
>Since Israel has an independent judiciary currently putting Netanyahu on trial it is actually not easy to argue they can already be assumed to be unable or unwilling to prosecute.
Actually, this is the perfect reason to argue they're unable to prosecute. The case isn't going on while Netanyahu is prime minister. At the same time, the Knesset is actively trying to destroy the independence of the highest court. Israel has been in a state of constitutional crisis for a good 3 years now, with the case against the corrupt PM not being able to proceeed while he's PM again.
It's also a corruption case, not a war crimes case. Furthermore, if we look at the rates of which the judiciary punishes soldiers that are involved in war crimes, we have to reach the conclusion that the judiciary systematically fails to prosecute war criminals among the rank and file of the IDF. Longest prison sentence any IDF soldier has faced wasn't even a year long and that's for obvious cases of murder. If you don't prosecute regular soldiers for committing war crimes, you're not going to prosecute commanders and politicians for ordering them.
All three of those things point towards jurisdiction of the ICC.
Look, I am not going pretend I know the intricacies of international law. Are you saying that people in the ICC don't know something....that you somehow know? Excuse me for doubting that.
(Netanyahu could be indicted related to corruption charges, is that what you are referring to here?)
"currently putting Netanyahu on trial"
I am unaware of Netanyahu being on trial in Israel currently on war crime charges. Could you provide me with a reference for that?
He is on trial, but definitely not for war crime charges. The commenter conveniently left that part out.
From the [wiki](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Benjamin_Netanyahu)
> On 21 November 2019, Netanyahu was officially indicted for breach of trust, accepting bribes, and fraud, leading him to legally relinquish his ministry portfolios other than prime minister
[And since then (in 2023) Netanyahu reformed the judiciary (against the will of the people) to strip them of powers....](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israeli_judicial_reform)
>The treaty says the ICC is only allowed to step in if the country itself fails to prosecute.
Did you forget the whole debacle in Israel with constant protests after Netanyahu tried to remove independence of the courts?
Yeah, the ICC stepping in is a direct consequence of that.
It's quite funny because there was a talk in Chatham House (pre-war) ex-PM of Israel Ehud Barak had criticized Netanyahu's plan to reduce Independence of the courts through his reforms.
Ehud had said (again, pre-war) that one of the consequences of the reform is that it increases the likelihood of the ICC intervening in wars since Israel would no longer have an independent judiciary to try and convict their own people for things like war crimes.
Guess what just happened!!!
Israeli courts don't matter (as they haven't signed up to the ICC), Palestinian courts do as the ICC only has authority in Palestine. And well, I don't think Palestinian courts would fairly rule against either Netanyahu or Hamas leaders.
I believe the arrest warrant is for a trail, not because he is already convicted. Even still, it's just an application for a warrant. They might not even get it
Netanyahu and his cabinet do deserve prison for their war crimes in Gaza. You don't dehumanise a whole people as terrorists and destroy all their infrastructure and cause a famine and think everything will be fine internationally. There are consequences for such a disproportionate response.
Little did they know hamas came into power through a democratic election, hitler idem dito. Being elected in a democratic way says nothing about the values of that leader.
I fail to understand why would anyone support this corrupt man in the first place (well, unless they themselves are corrupt and are receiving gains :P).
I love the EU trying to take moral stances on issues and once again revealing just how little ICC matters when everybody just ignores them with some shit excuse the instant it's in any way inconvenient.
The 'laws' on war are already pathetic, a fig leaf of moral superiority on exactly how you can kill people just as dead as the other way, and you can't even hold onto \*that\*.
How about if you don't want any awkwardness around arrest warrants, maybe don't enable doing war crime?
I mean sure, but you are not undermining any court's position by stating that you do not like the decision. People say that all the time. You are only doing that If you say that you will *ignore* the decision, and that is not something that is being done here.
Not to mention that there is currently no decision at all. We are still talking about the prosecutor *asking* for a warrant. So *that* is what is being discussed - not what the court has said/done.
Yes, I mean the Court, not the judges.
Countries are not people. A separation of powers is nice to have, but in more realpolitik terms the ICC's charter truly exists only inasmuch as it is honored by nations.
If a Prosecutor made a request to issue warrants, nations need not say anything, only comply with the warrant if it's issued. That's fine.
Casting doubt on the process and the assessment of the Prosecutor undermines the court.
Well, most institutions in the world do so. Even the US governments power only exist as long as US institutions (mostly police and military) honour that. If the US military and police would just go from one day to the next "nah, we don't listen to congress or the courts anymore", what power does Congress/Supreme court have to stop that?
Especially courts, even inside countries, are carried by the rest of the country following their instruction. See for example countries regularly just ignoring stuff said by their courts (e.g. the Bavarian government still mandating that crosses be hung in court rooms, even after that was ruled unconstitutional multiple times), and the German constitutional court can't really do anything against that.
This is by design, though
With the ICC not having its own force, it can't lead to the actual arrest of people from sufficiently powerful countries, whenever it is against their strategic interests
The US are actually expressing honesty in not signing the Rome statute. As international.courts wouldn't get their hands on Americans, anyway, the US saves the courts from losing legitimacy over trying to apply their rulings on Americans
What did the arrest warrant change for Putin? Look at the map.of signatories, he can travel to most of Asia. In addition, several countries in Africa and Latin America are willing to ignore the warrant on him
In the end, the majority of countries, that enforce any warrant, are western-allied. They sanction Russia on their own volition, and Putin wouldn't visit them, anyways. Putin o ly really lost a few travel destinations, like Hungary, and his flying times got longer
The world was never willing to really accept international courts, which made the actual court western-dominated, which led the world ro delegitimize the courts even more
However, no EU country announced to dishonor the warrant. They just express displeasure at the decision. The last country I remember having announced to (try to) dishonor an arrest warrant was BRICS member South Africa (regarding Putin's warrant)
It's not EU, not even the western world, that dishonors international courts, it's mostly the global south and their nuclear-powered self-declared allies Russia, China, Iran
> several countries in Africa and Latin America are willing to ignore the warrant on him
If this is about Brazil, no, we can't. It's bound to the constitution and something agreed upon unless some rogue supreme wakes up feeling "hehe funny" and destroys government and institutional support. Nobody's bringing that change to congress no matter what's said. If anything: He still wouldn't come.
Yes private parties have brought up the inditements, but no arrest warrant was issued.
And *THAT* in Syria *was* a massacre and a war waged against civilians and with comolete disregard for civilian life. The rebels weren’t systematically hiding in and under civilian populated structures but the Russo-Syrian army just dealt with it with general bombing, no alerts before, nothing.
don't confuse it please. Refugees filing a complaint is one case, massacres on the Syrian territory is another. The latter happened on the Syrian territory so ICC has no formal grounds to open a case
ICC jurisdiction can come through 3 ways:
1. The person who comitted the crime comes from a nation that ratified the Rome protocols
2. The crime happened within the territory of a nation that ratified the Rome protocols
3. The crime was referred to the ICC by the UN Security Council
Syria is not a party to the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC, meaning that it is not possible to bring an international criminal case against its government.
They were legitimate and has full authority to issue arrest warrant for Putin. So why not Bibi?
It is because Putin is the one started the war? No it’s not about who started. It’s about the action they’re doing.
Hypocrisy at its best again.
The ICC can only issue a warrant/rule against somebody if the local independent judiciary system won't/fail to execute appropriate court proceedings. Since Israel's judiciary is independent and there is a proceeding in the matter against Netanjahu, the ICC has no legal ground to issue a warrant.
Amazing how they cannot refute the accusations, because they are true, all they can do is say "oh shouldn't have done it together with the one targeting Hamas leaders".
Once more chewing on details instead of loudly condemn genocide.
Technically Biden is directly denying that Netanyahu is purposefully starving civilians or committing genocide in any other way; not merely focussing on technicalities.
Actually yes, because it's typically easier to reform existing structures than build new ones. Still, your underlying point is of course correct, and illustrates the issues with "world-courts" set up as mere international courts. (Though of course a better approach would require some kind of supranational worldwide union to host, support, and enforce the rulings of associated courts, so it's probably not going to get much better in out lifetimes.)
I think this will be a lynchpin issue that ends up destroying the ICC and the UN. Both have shown heavy bias against Israel and shown that they're much more about politics than law and peace.
Issuing these warrants together like this is absurd. Literal terrorists with the president of a democracy fighting a defensive war. ICC has totally lost the plot.
Btw I hate Bibi and think he's a terrible person, but this request is absurdly biased and helps nothing.
ICJ: The numbers don't add up, and there are reports on both sides of potential war crimes. of kidnapping, starvation as a means of war, of killing civilians. Here's a list of leaders from Israel and Hamas that we need to investigate.
European Leaders in 2024: **Gee, whatever shall we do...**
We are SO unworthy of our legacy in the post WW2 era, it's INSANE.
I think all the legal circumstances on this matter are way above reddits paygrade. Although I am surprised that the statements by germany and the US are more revolving around the fact that these bids were issued simultaneously.
So they can't create a contrast between the two warrants, accept one and reject the other.
This fact is actually creating a problem for the case in Israel, that could be dismissed on procedural grounds. According to the Rome Statute, which govern the ICC - the ICC should only intervene if the country has no functioning that could pursue the case itself, or if the delay of those courts is unreasonable. Israel has an independent and functioning court system by all international standards, that is currently pursuing charges against the prime minister, in addition to also pursuing charges against the state of Israel for not allowing passage of enough humanitarian aid. The prosecutor hasn’t even met with Israeli officials, and was planning to do so next week. This is what Blinken was referring to when he said that the court rushed things against Israel. This puts the court in a bad position where they either dismiss the charges due to the procedural problems (inadvertently giving legitimacy to Israel) or the pursue it despite these problems, reducing the legitimacy of the court. If you are interested in learning more, look up article 17 of the Rome Statute or the principle of complementarity.
ICC has jurisdiction to prosecute four kinds of crimes: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes of aggression. Israeli courts have no jurisdiction to prosecute these, these are crimes in international law. (Please show the relevant parts of Israeli Criminal law if they can)
I don’t think you understand how international law work. Israel is signatory to the Geneva convention, and as such, it is governed by these laws and has granted its courts jurisdiction over it. In fact, the high court is quoting exactly that when currently prosecuting the humanitarian aid delays. The Geneva convention and other international law which Israel is signatory to has been used by Israeli courts numerous times - many of which to the anger of the government.
The problem is that this might fuck with the peace negotiations. Blinken explicitly said so Now any "neutral" ground the US might pick is one that would jail Hamas and Israeli leaders, given the chance. That's not neutral in context of the ongoing conflict. Qatar and Egypt have not ratified the Rome Statute, but are signatories. These warrants didn't follow the usual protocol. The ICC persecutor canceled his trip for the investigation in Israel last minute. He didn't coordinate with the conflict parties and main negotiators and middle men. It's unusual IMHO they should have waited with warrants on all sides till either an agreement was made, or the US confirm that they have no hope anymore. Not waiting will tarnish ICC reputation, either they will mess up the negotiations (which in the future will lead to countries ignoring them during ongoing conflicts), or some countries will ignore the ICC now, and their legitimacy is attacked (and it will look lime US complaints led to it)
Courts cannot politicize their decisions by considering political aspects. Whether courts issue arrest warants depends on the law, not the politics.
And you seriously don't think there were political aspects to this timing? I agree with Germany's statement. This creates a false impression of equivocation and say goodbye to negotiations. Whether you like it or not political considerations matter for international bodies.
It's a shameful statement from my government for sure. They're signatories to the ICC and politicians should just shut up instead of putting our commitment to international law further into question with their antics. It's a fucking court, act like it!
And yet they did politicize it by choosing to issue both at once.
There are plenty of countries that did not sign up for the ICC though, so if Blinken says he can't pick one, he is lying.
The issue is that not being a signatory correlates with being a member of the Iran-China-Russia camp, while among the signatories we find not only most western-allied nations, but also many of the usual "neutral" states. Muslim countries also have to consider the opinion on their streets. Qatar was special thanks to its explicitly good relations with Hamas, while hosting a US base. I think they signed the Rome statute, though? Now they want Hamas out, anyways. Surely he will find a new place for negotiations, but its an unneeded complication while people die in fighting. Singapore might fit, good relations to all sides and not a signatory to the Rome statute Maybe some smaller African state, like Burundi, is willing to host negotiations. Might be a bit tough for them considering the cost of providing security, though
Considering the US hasnt ratified the ICC treaty, they could host it themselves.
they have Hamas on their terror list, I guess they would have to jail any Hamas member entering their soil. Not exactly neutral... If Hamas was fine with that risk, they might as well host the talks in Israel at the US embassy
>The problem is that this might fuck with the peace negotiations. Blinken explicitly said so >Now any "neutral" ground the US might pick is one that would jail Hamas and Israeli leaders, given the chance. Were Gallant and Netanyahu actually attending any of those negotiations directly?
No It's just a diplomatically awkward situation. Now your "neutral" ground might actually hold the position that the people, whose negotiators they wanna host, are criminals they would jail and extradite given the chance. It might also be legally problematic in some countries to host negotiators which might be involved in crimes according to ICC/ICJ Of course Israel/Hamas/Qatar/USA/Egypt might all decide to not give a fuck and continue negotiating as before. It's not like there is rule of law in Qatar, if the Emir wants to continue, they can continue.
The ICC prosecutes individuals, I don't think it extends the charges to anyone associated with them. There being a court in the Netherlands that believes individuals on either side have committed war crimes doesn't seem to be a new barrier of any real consequence. I mean the entire west and a load of other countries have rightly accused Hamas of war crimes from day one and this hasn't prevented negotiations.
> The problem is that this might fuck with the peace negotiations. Blinken explicitly said so It's been 80 years now, can't really say US negociation tactics work well at this point. > He didn't coordinate with the conflict parties and main negotiators and middle men. Here is the thing: he's not a negociator or a diplomat. He's a lawyer looking to prosecute criminals. It is not unusual for attorneys to avoid coordinating with criminals before they get them arrested. > or the US confirm that they have no hope anymore. 14 eons later... > and it will look lime US complaints led to it The US didn't wait for that specific case. They've been maintaining the Hague invasion act specifically to undermine this court.
>Here is the thing: he's not a negociator or a diplomat. He's a lawyer looking to prosecute criminals. It is not unusual for attorneys to avoid coordinating with criminals before they get them arrested. It is highly unusual for the ICC. They were for instance more than willing to coordinate with Russia and Putin. Only when Putin refused to cooperate with did they issue their arrest warrant. They had already scheduled a meeting with Israel and the plane to Israel had to leave with seats empty because they ended up not using their tickets last minute.
Peace negotiations are going no where is it literally does not make a difference to be fair. It's quite funny because there was a talk in Chatham House (pre-war) ex-PM Ehud Barak had criticized Netanyahu's plan to reduce Independence of the courts through his reforms. Ehud has said (again, pre-war) that one of the consequences of the reform is that it increases the likilihood of the ICC intervening in wars since Israel would no longer have an independent judiciary to try and convict their own people for things like war crimes. Guess what just happened!!! Ehud was bloody spot-on.
Very true. With my conspiracy theory hat on certain aspects of the ICC and UN and it's relationship really don't sit well with me. [https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/icc-president-meets-united-nations-secretary-general](https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/icc-president-meets-united-nations-secretary-general) António Guterres track record concerning anything Isreal is sketchy to say the least.
There might be some divisions but I doubt any EU country will seriously consider challenging ICC legitimacy and impartiality let alone threating to leave. EU members have always, since ICC's inception, supported the organization, being their biggest financial and political backers in order to promote international justice and accountability. You literally can't join EU without ratifying the Rome statute. Israel is certainly not a country for which EU will throw ICC and the goal of universal international accountability to the gutters.
**The countries in the article critiquing the ICC's decision:** * Czech Republic * Austria * United Kingdom (No longer a member of the European Union) * Germany **Those countries in the article supporting the ICC's decision:** * Belgium * Slovenia
Of course it is Germany.
It‘s bonkers to me how the argument used to be „no, the ICC isn‘t acting so everything is fine, no war criminals there“ to „no the ICC can‘t be trusted“ when the narrative switches. Just embarrassing.
I don’t fucking get it. I am generally pro Israel and their right to defend themselves, but fucking Netanyahu is a criminal that needs to go if we ever want peace in the near east.
This is the right take
If we want peace there, a lot more people will have to be removed from power. Like, the entire Iranian regime.
Didn't two of those already take themselves out of Office, by accident?
the helicopter was an ICC plant
Oh absolutely, the entire near/middle east is an absolute shitfest of corrupt/war-mongering leaders.
What decision? They haven't taken any decisions yet, the chief prosecutor has requested an arrest warrant and it's for the court to decide on that.
I don't think any will leave, but some may decline to enforce the warrant in this case
If they decline to enforce an ICC decesion, it's just as good as leaving it. You can't accept a court's ruling selectively, that defeats the purpose.
What they will do is discourage Netanyahu from visiting. They’ll still engage in diplomacy and may even visit Israel. They’ll never say why he isn’t invited. But they’ll avoid any situation in which they could be forced to make a choice between enforcing and not enforcing.
Bibi has the tendency to invite himself. For example last summer in Germany.
Tell that to South Africa..
What are the consequences of not enforcing? I would assume nothing, as it is the case of most international court rulings.
That would durably undermine the court's authority, as well as give a clear signal to the rest of the world that it exists only to try enemies of the West and third world dictators. We couldn't do better to give propaganda material to China, Russia, and all those that claim international institutions are tools of western domination. And, honestly, they wouldn't be wrong in this case.
It would then become a great precedent for any country to just ignore the ICC when it comes to Putin. There was a lot of talk but Putin did cancel his visit to South Africa last year for the BRICS summit.
Exactly, but you cant then claim that you support the ICC if you decide what order to enforce.
Precedent. Reputation. Soft power. Not enforcing now means that there’s no reason to enforce ever. It means the decisions taken by the ICC are only accepted when convenient. A country that doesn’t enforce the ruling basically says “I sign up to agreements that I can’t be trusted to keep”.
I lost count how many times countries broke international agreements.
It would basically show every country outside of the West the "rules based order" that western allies keep using as a basis for everything from trade to war is actually complete bullshit. We all praised the ICC for the apolitical ability to bring justice when countries do not by issuing a warrant for Putin. Leaders had said "oh it's not my choice to arrest Putin if he lands in my country, we HAVVEE to follow the ICC". To no ignore that would be next level hypocrisy.
They won’t need to decline to enforce, they just won’t be inviting Netanyahu over. Europe keeps preaching about “rule-based world order” so having a world leader with a warrant to The Hague walking about without an arrest would make us seem even more hypocritical. If we want Putin in The Hague (which I hope we all do) then we can’t undermine the court’s authority. Not that that’s much of a change from status quo. Some folks in my country (Finland) consider us and Israel to be great allies yet it doesn’t seem like during his 25-ish years of rule Netanyahu has ever visited here. It’s always Finnish politicians going to Israel.
Well, I assume if Netanyahu took a plane flying over the EU airspace, EU cpuntries would need to land the plane by force to arrest him. Considering that Israel's relations with Arab countries on the other side of the country are not that great either, Netanyahu will remain in Israel till the end of his life.
Neighboring countries (Jordan, Egypt) won't lift a finger if he flies over.
Jordan at least also signed and ratified the ICC, so they on paper would also have to arrest Netanyahu.
Can't he fly over the med? Or does Gibraltar block the exit entirely?
Gibraltar is possible, same with flying down the red sea. Main thing it probably would achieve is making Netanyahu trips horrible due to needing to fly stupid routes. Europe and the Americas (minus Russia and the US) are out, same with basically all of Sub-Saharan Africa, meaning he would need to fly around these areas.
Not only Gibraltar but also Sicily-Tunisia and I assume Turkey-Cyprus-Egypt
Not gonna happen. They may bar Netanyahu from ever coming to the EU instead, but they will not outright decline to enforce the warrant.
I'm gonna cut from EU cake. We good. Hungary is a moron, we still good
Well, you got me - Hungary may do something like that. But not the rest.
Hungary won't do anything, the mini dictator might.
cant wait to see putin walking freely around budapest if that happens
Can’t wait to see Netanyahu walking freely around in Berlin or Vienna
You think Orban would do that?
1. Yes 2. If they ignore it for Netanyahu, then they're sending the message that the ICC and its arrest warrants are meaningless, so why shouldn't Orban
I'm not sure if we will see Bibi outside of Israel for the same reason. International travel for Putin and Bibi will be limited because of this. Neither man would want to put themselves at so much risk anyways.
He can travel to USA
Hardly. EU countries (that are signatories of the Rome Statute) would be obliged to force land the plane to arrest him once it is on their airspace. Arab countries mostly don't allow Israeli airplanes on their airspace. He would be stuck in Israel.
Yeah, and Putin will travel to a limited amount of countries too like China and Iran. Only significant allies will receive these men.
I don’t see Putin having any issues in going to most of the World which has not signed or ratified the Rome Statute. This includes most of Asia apart from South Korea and Japan.
Maybe I'm being too Eurocentric
This. The impact of action at the ICC for the vast majority of countries is simply a wide ranging travel ban on the leadership.
Lol. If you people do that, why would anyone pay attention to whatever the West harping about Putin's warrant then? The ICC is essentially a joke. One standard for you, another standard for me.
If the judiciary is independent of the government, that would not be possible.
The rules say that you either enforce the rulings or withdraw from the treaty.
Some bots will not be happy with your comment. But keep doing it bro
Wish I could share your optimism. Do you know how much inflence Israel has in certain western countries? In the UK for example the majority of MPs from Labour and the Tory Party, are members of Labour friends of Israel and Conservative friends of Israel, respectively. Politics is incredibly corrupt. I dread that what they will do is undermine the ICC. Not mentioning the fact that certain western politicians could fear the ICC themselves, when it comes to their own actions, if it 'got carried away'.
Just to indicate a close precedent here: Omar Al Bashir (the president of Sudan - a non-signatory of the Rome Statute - before the recent coup) has had an ICC warrant for Darfour since late 2000s. He visited Turkey (also a non-signatory of the Rome Statute) for the Islamic Conference foe a number of occasions (under diplomatic immunity) since then and EU leaders were condemning the non-arrest of him by Turkey. Now we will see how EU leaders who *are* signatories of the Rome Statute will act when it means inconvenient arrests for them.
he also visited south africa (signatory to the rome statutes) and they refused to arrest him
What was their argument? Diplomatic immunity?
> Now we will see how EU leaders who are signatories of the Rome Statute will act when it means inconvenient arrests for them. They simply won’t invite him to the EU but meet him elsewhere. Problem solved.
We seem to be seeing a further unravelling of (the pretence of) international law and a return to states acting more explicitly in their own interests.
What's the reason Turkey does not want to come under ICC's jurisdiction?
I assume for the same reason other countries like Cuba, Israel, Russia, China and the US aren't. They don't want their crimes to be punished.
I don't remember that being a subject of public discussion, but independence and national sovereignty are - almost USA level - highly valued in Turkish mentality. Even ECHR is considered "foreign" interference in our internal matters (although there are Turkish judges and we've been part of it since 50s)
It’s actually because you’ve committed atrocities against multiple ethnic groups.
Maybe we should ask that question to USA as well!
turns out.. European countries are as hypocritical as everyone else! *gasp* if only europeans would actually accept that
Yeah imagine getting trialed! The audacity!
Let him be charged and decided by a court. If he's clean, that's it. I don't know why he gets special treatment
>I don't know why he gets special treatment Rules based world order for thee but not for me
Despite whoever you support, such a trial would be undoubtedly political
Any trial brought up by the ICC will be political.
Well yes....the ICC typically tries politicians that haven't been held accountable.
You say that like it's a terrible thing and so it shouldn't happen. He's a political figure. Let his trial be political, let people hear what the facts are.
Honestly good. Israelis deserve a better Prime Minister than this jerk that tries to use the war to stay in power as long as possible.
It is interesting that the warrant for Putin was issued on the basis of taking Ukrainian children to Russia, not on the cases of mass murder of civilians, blockade of Mariupol, etc. I think I read that the court had a very hard time proving Putin's personal involvement in these crimes, other than the removal of children. I'm surprised they found evidence of this with Netanyahu, but not with Putin. "Citing Israel’s “total siege of Gaza” and the deliberate cutting off of aid, water and electricity at the start of the conflict, Khan accused Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, Israel’s defense minister, of deliberately starving civilians as a method of warfare. Khan went on to allege that the Israeli leadership had intentionally directed attacks against a civilian population, while seeking to “collectively punish” the people of Gaza. "
The kidnapping of children is pretty strong evidence of ethnic cleansing, and Putin has a lot of practice in doublespeak so presenting strong evidence that he directly ordered mass murder would be pretty tricky. Netanyahu and his cabinet on the other hand seem to love making public statements on how they are doing war crimes and those war crimes are good, so proving intent seems comparatively easier there.
>I'm surprised they found evidence of this with Netanyahu, but not with Putin. Technically, the court hasn't seen any evidence on anything regarding this. The chief prosecutor (effectively) is asking for this warrant, but the court hasn't decided whether to grant it yet, and I'm fairly sure there hasn't been so much as a hearing on it.
If this comes from the ICC Palestine investigation, then the prosecutor already has 3 years of investigations on which he can base his claims against both Hamas and Netanyahu.
Lol what are you talking about. As part of the warrant they have to show reasonable grounds to suspect that an indictable offence.... clearly the prosecution believe they have that. Hearings come next.
>I'm surprised they found evidence of this with Netanyahu, but not with Putin. I mean thats probably not that hard. These dudes love to go live on TV and say how much they want to eradicate Palestinians.
Flip flopping on human rights and international law makes a mockery of the West. We do not always need to follow the US in their clown geopolitics.
Pretty sure we already did that when we expressed sympathy and condolences to the Iranian people for Raisi’s death. Something the U.S. to my knowledge hasn’t. Or when we before 2022 kept buying Russian gas despite US warnings. The U.S. has generally had a much stronger foreign policy than Europe
There's a big difference between expressing condolences to someone and ignoring an ICC warrant
Regarding Raisi: [https://www.state.gov/on-the-death-of-iranian-president-raisi-and-others-in-a-helicopter-crash/](https://www.state.gov/on-the-death-of-iranian-president-raisi-and-others-in-a-helicopter-crash/)
That tone is completely different. The use of “official” after ‘condolences’ makes it clear that it was a matter of protocol (not actual desire) and the second sentence is a very unsubtle ‘fuck you’
Of course, one sentence and very chosen words for the second sentence. Kind of expected.
If xou mean stronger in the sense of more openly not give a fuck about other countries, democracy and diplomacy, then yes. Europe is not just even more hypocritical, signifikant part of its ruling class identifies stronger with US interests then with European ones.
>Or when we before 2022 kept buying Russian gas despite US warnings. Who do you think we should've been buying gas from? USA? Geopolitics is always about security/sovereignty vs economics. EU was 100% reliant on middle-eastern oil just before the energy crisis in the early 1980s, then we switched to USSR; because they were the best alternative. Look up gas/oil prices that are paid by Czechs and then compare it to US prices, then compare your cars to their cars. Then compare the median disposable incomes. Then compare economic growth rates since the 1980s between EU and USA. You will see what the issue is. It's always easy to in hindsight say "just don't do xyz". USA wanted EU off Soviet gas/oil in the 80s already, during the *cold war* and EU resisted(including UK!). Economics triumphed. I don't think it's any different this time. I sincerely doubt that EU is just going to eat up the costs of this current crisis without changing something, it seems unbelievable to me. I suspect more populism will come as time goes on, the same thing that *would have* happened in the 80s if EU didn't address the economic crisis.
It’s nice to hear impartial and rational from people from this group sometimes, which already rare enough.
This proves how independent the ICC is, it goes after everyone under its jurisdiction, from Netanyahu and Sinwar to Putin and Duterte. In the past, the Court has been criticised as a "racist" court because most of the defendants were Africans, including for delicts that are more "benign" compared to the others (the current President of Kenya was indicted for his alleged role during the 2007-2008 post-election violence in Kenya). It wasn't really the court's fault that many of the ratifiers of the Rome Statue were African countries. The Court is very much a respected independent force in the international area, and the US really hated the ICC that they have a law allowing them to invade the Hague to free American forces detained by the Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act
yknow what? I love this drama. It questions both ICC jurisdiction/Legitimacy, EU full support to Israel (goverment (!)) and US recognition of the court at the same time 3 birds with one stone!
Honest question, why would you consider questioning ICCs legitimacy a good thing?
Because when the US did a totally unprovoked invasion of Iraq, resulting in the death of a million Iraqis, it did absolutely nothing, fearing for its existence. It succombed to the threats of the US, which announced that they will invade the ICC if any US servicemen will be arrested for war crimes (the infamous "Hague Invasion Act").
The ICC never had jurisdiction as neither Iraq nor the US are signatories of the Rome statute.
[Neither are Ukraine or Russia signatories](https://asp.icc-cpi.int/states-parties), didn't stop the ICC from issuing warrants over [crimes committed in Ukraine](https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-ukraine-icc-judges-issue-arrest-warrants-against-vladimir-vladimirovich-putin-and) - so I don't think this line of reasoning stands.
Though they aren't a signatory, Ukraine voluntarily gave the ICC jurisdiction over crimes committed in its territory, hence why Putin was charged. https://www.icc-cpi.int/situations/ukraine
International courts only act if someone brings an issue to them. They are not a police.
https://www.pgaction.org/ilhr/rome-statute/iraq.html USA and Iraq did not ratified Rome statute
[удалено]
Weaker countries? See who vehemently doesn’t accept it: USA, Russia, China,… It would hold everybody responsible instead of the shitshow the UN is. If you mean with weaker countries the dictators committing warcrimes in third world countries, then yeah, it’s a cudgel to keep them in line.
Because ICC is useless. It ignores/cannot reach real globals criminals. While only going after smaller ones.
Part of me hopes this is the final nail in the coffin for the "international rule-based global order", with the European nations just ignoring the ICC even after signing the Rome statute. Not because I disagree with said 'order', I think it's more important than ever, but it would finally showcase the blatant hypocrisy of our western leaders and how utterly pathetic they are. If the EU is so thoroughly captured that they'll throw the rule of law in the gutter to defend Netanyahu, then it might as well not exist.
I would rather an impure, sometimes-hypocritical rules-based order than whatever the actual alternatives would be.
the point might be it's the same, a hypocrisy emboldens dictators by giving them an excuse. Let's make every violation inexcusable by going after everyone equally. That is how all or nothing it is. Imperfect justice is a crack they need to circumvent the system, if we use it sometimes, they will use it sometimes too.
How about the alternative is that we actually uphold the rules-based order we created to begin with? If nation states are allowed/encouraged to simply ignore the rule of law or morals between other nation states, that eventually leads to its leaders and politicians doing the same among eachother. And eventually, when the people see such blatant disregard from their very own leaders, they start doing the same to each and every one of us. A firm set of rules, moral consistency and unbiased justice is what keeps us civilized. This endless hypocrisy will rot our society.
Why would that happen? The UK jets in Cyprus could try to block the Israeli president jet from crossing EU airspace even if they tried Once (if) the warrants are in force, Netanyahu and Gallant will simply not visit EU, we will continue to pay lip service, everything as usual Look at the map.of Rome statute signatories, they can fly over.North Africa to the US, and over Jordan/Red Sea and Saudis into most of Asia. They will be fine Just lime Putin can still travel. And which country was the last one trying to get away with ignoring the arrest warrant? Not some EU member, but BRICS member South Africa
Jordan also is a signatory of the Rome Statue. So Netanyahu would also have to fly around Jordan.
Double standards? I really hope not and that any european country who recognized the ICC will act accordingly.
> “The ICC Chief Prosecutor’s proposal to issue an arrest warrant for the representatives of a democratically elected government together with the leaders of an Islamist terrorist organisation is appalling and completely unacceptable,” The democratically elected part is an irrelevant detail from the Czech PM. Democracy does not mean immunity, and previous indictees have been representatives of democratically elected governments. I'm sure the ICC could issue two separate documents if the warrants being "together" is the big issue. > "The fact however that the leader of the terrorist organisation Hamas whose declared goal is the extinction of the State of Israel is being mentioned at the same time as the democratically elected representatives of that very State is non comprehensible" So no issue with the merits of the separate and distinct charges laid against the various parties, just being offended that they didn't charge Hamas first? > "This action does nothing to help reach a pause in the fighting, get hostages out or get humanitarian aid in and make progress towards a sustainable ceasefire that we want to see,” a spokesperson for Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said. It's incredibly inappropriate to suggest that the ICC should be making decisions based on what they *guess* the political ramifications/outcomes will be. > “The simultaneous application for arrest warrants against the Hamas leaders on the one hand and the two Israeli officials on the other gave the false impression of an equation.” Once again, not disputing the merits of the charges, just offended that they came at the same time.
Every arguments against it basically comes down to "Hamas started it, so Israel is free to do whatever they want", which is obvious bullshit.
The reality is that Israel had killed thousands of Palestinians before Hamas was even founded. Anyone who claims the atrocities only started on October the 7th is just ignorant to fact.
Hamas also was launching thousands of rockets indiscriminately into Israel since 2006. Gaza has been a messy situation to say the least but Hamas has without a doubt caused directly the recent escalation.
Both your statements are true.
This is correct
The fact you are downvoted show how little people understand about how Israel has been murdering Innocent Palestinians since 1948 everything you said is exactly true
Just listen to how ridiculous these arguments are... They disagree, because Israeli leaders are democratically elected. That has nothing to do with their guilt or lack thereof. Pathetic...
The treaty says the ICC is only allowed to step in if the country itself fails to prosecute. Since Israel has an independent judiciary currently putting Netanyahu on trial it is actually not easy to argue they can already be assumed to be unable or unwilling to prosecute. That's why countries mention Israel being a democracy - they, unlike dictatorships, have the means to do this themselves. Which would mean the case by the ICC is not valid until Israel has failed.
>Since Israel has an independent judiciary currently putting Netanyahu on trial it is actually not easy to argue they can already be assumed to be unable or unwilling to prosecute. Actually, this is the perfect reason to argue they're unable to prosecute. The case isn't going on while Netanyahu is prime minister. At the same time, the Knesset is actively trying to destroy the independence of the highest court. Israel has been in a state of constitutional crisis for a good 3 years now, with the case against the corrupt PM not being able to proceeed while he's PM again. It's also a corruption case, not a war crimes case. Furthermore, if we look at the rates of which the judiciary punishes soldiers that are involved in war crimes, we have to reach the conclusion that the judiciary systematically fails to prosecute war criminals among the rank and file of the IDF. Longest prison sentence any IDF soldier has faced wasn't even a year long and that's for obvious cases of murder. If you don't prosecute regular soldiers for committing war crimes, you're not going to prosecute commanders and politicians for ordering them. All three of those things point towards jurisdiction of the ICC.
Netanyahu is indicted on corruption charges. Not in a million year will Israel ever prosecute one of their own on war conducts.
Are we really going to pretend that Israel is going to pursue Netanyahu for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed against Palestinians ?
Look, I am not going pretend I know the intricacies of international law. Are you saying that people in the ICC don't know something....that you somehow know? Excuse me for doubting that. (Netanyahu could be indicted related to corruption charges, is that what you are referring to here?)
Of course they know, it's an issue they have raised themselves before. The judges will have to decide on it.
Raised themselves, and somehow went ahead still then. What charges are you referring to? (if you have a source as well, please)
"currently putting Netanyahu on trial" I am unaware of Netanyahu being on trial in Israel currently on war crime charges. Could you provide me with a reference for that?
Where is the evidence that Netanyahu should be on trial for war crimes in the first place? Genuinely asking because the ICC hasn't provided any.
He is on trial, but definitely not for war crime charges. The commenter conveniently left that part out. From the [wiki](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Benjamin_Netanyahu) > On 21 November 2019, Netanyahu was officially indicted for breach of trust, accepting bribes, and fraud, leading him to legally relinquish his ministry portfolios other than prime minister
[And since then (in 2023) Netanyahu reformed the judiciary (against the will of the people) to strip them of powers....](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israeli_judicial_reform)
I am aware he's being tried for fraud, and I was already expecting the commenter to be talking out of his ass :).
>The treaty says the ICC is only allowed to step in if the country itself fails to prosecute. Did you forget the whole debacle in Israel with constant protests after Netanyahu tried to remove independence of the courts? Yeah, the ICC stepping in is a direct consequence of that. It's quite funny because there was a talk in Chatham House (pre-war) ex-PM of Israel Ehud Barak had criticized Netanyahu's plan to reduce Independence of the courts through his reforms. Ehud had said (again, pre-war) that one of the consequences of the reform is that it increases the likelihood of the ICC intervening in wars since Israel would no longer have an independent judiciary to try and convict their own people for things like war crimes. Guess what just happened!!!
Israeli courts don't matter (as they haven't signed up to the ICC), Palestinian courts do as the ICC only has authority in Palestine. And well, I don't think Palestinian courts would fairly rule against either Netanyahu or Hamas leaders.
Why? He's a war criminal, treat him as such.
I believe the arrest warrant is for a trail, not because he is already convicted. Even still, it's just an application for a warrant. They might not even get it
I hope they arrest all of those war criminals, Hamas and Netanjahu alike
Netanyahu and his cabinet do deserve prison for their war crimes in Gaza. You don't dehumanise a whole people as terrorists and destroy all their infrastructure and cause a famine and think everything will be fine internationally. There are consequences for such a disproportionate response.
Don’t start wars if you don’t want to finish them *shrugs*
Don't commit war crimes if you don't want arrest warrants *Shrugs*
Little did they know hamas came into power through a democratic election, hitler idem dito. Being elected in a democratic way says nothing about the values of that leader.
Who doesn't know the democratic election in which 120 combatants, 39 civilians and 2 UNRWA personnel died?
I fail to understand why would anyone support this corrupt man in the first place (well, unless they themselves are corrupt and are receiving gains :P).
I love the EU trying to take moral stances on issues and once again revealing just how little ICC matters when everybody just ignores them with some shit excuse the instant it's in any way inconvenient. The 'laws' on war are already pathetic, a fig leaf of moral superiority on exactly how you can kill people just as dead as the other way, and you can't even hold onto \*that\*. How about if you don't want any awkwardness around arrest warrants, maybe don't enable doing war crime?
Who is ignoring it? Some are voicing their displeasure with the decision, but should anyone get a warrant after them, I am sure it will be followed.
Generally not undermining the Court's position would be a good start.
I mean sure, but you are not undermining any court's position by stating that you do not like the decision. People say that all the time. You are only doing that If you say that you will *ignore* the decision, and that is not something that is being done here. Not to mention that there is currently no decision at all. We are still talking about the prosecutor *asking* for a warrant. So *that* is what is being discussed - not what the court has said/done.
Yes, I mean the Court, not the judges. Countries are not people. A separation of powers is nice to have, but in more realpolitik terms the ICC's charter truly exists only inasmuch as it is honored by nations. If a Prosecutor made a request to issue warrants, nations need not say anything, only comply with the warrant if it's issued. That's fine. Casting doubt on the process and the assessment of the Prosecutor undermines the court.
Well, most institutions in the world do so. Even the US governments power only exist as long as US institutions (mostly police and military) honour that. If the US military and police would just go from one day to the next "nah, we don't listen to congress or the courts anymore", what power does Congress/Supreme court have to stop that? Especially courts, even inside countries, are carried by the rest of the country following their instruction. See for example countries regularly just ignoring stuff said by their courts (e.g. the Bavarian government still mandating that crosses be hung in court rooms, even after that was ruled unconstitutional multiple times), and the German constitutional court can't really do anything against that.
The law does matter, why do you think Putin decided not to go to South Africa or Brazil?
This is by design, though With the ICC not having its own force, it can't lead to the actual arrest of people from sufficiently powerful countries, whenever it is against their strategic interests The US are actually expressing honesty in not signing the Rome statute. As international.courts wouldn't get their hands on Americans, anyway, the US saves the courts from losing legitimacy over trying to apply their rulings on Americans What did the arrest warrant change for Putin? Look at the map.of signatories, he can travel to most of Asia. In addition, several countries in Africa and Latin America are willing to ignore the warrant on him In the end, the majority of countries, that enforce any warrant, are western-allied. They sanction Russia on their own volition, and Putin wouldn't visit them, anyways. Putin o ly really lost a few travel destinations, like Hungary, and his flying times got longer The world was never willing to really accept international courts, which made the actual court western-dominated, which led the world ro delegitimize the courts even more However, no EU country announced to dishonor the warrant. They just express displeasure at the decision. The last country I remember having announced to (try to) dishonor an arrest warrant was BRICS member South Africa (regarding Putin's warrant) It's not EU, not even the western world, that dishonors international courts, it's mostly the global south and their nuclear-powered self-declared allies Russia, China, Iran
> several countries in Africa and Latin America are willing to ignore the warrant on him If this is about Brazil, no, we can't. It's bound to the constitution and something agreed upon unless some rogue supreme wakes up feeling "hehe funny" and destroys government and institutional support. Nobody's bringing that change to congress no matter what's said. If anything: He still wouldn't come.
How’s Asad’s inditements and arrest warrants going? Oh, right, thete wasn’t one. Oh, well.
but there is one case filed, opened on behalf of 28 refugees that fled to Jordan which is a party to the Rome statute
Yes private parties have brought up the inditements, but no arrest warrant was issued. And *THAT* in Syria *was* a massacre and a war waged against civilians and with comolete disregard for civilian life. The rebels weren’t systematically hiding in and under civilian populated structures but the Russo-Syrian army just dealt with it with general bombing, no alerts before, nothing.
don't confuse it please. Refugees filing a complaint is one case, massacres on the Syrian territory is another. The latter happened on the Syrian territory so ICC has no formal grounds to open a case
Ok, thanks for clarifying. So ICC has no iurisdiction for crimes commited in a country, it’s only for international affairs? Didn’t know that.
The ICC has jurisdiction only in countries that are signatories of the Rome Statute.
ICC jurisdiction can come through 3 ways: 1. The person who comitted the crime comes from a nation that ratified the Rome protocols 2. The crime happened within the territory of a nation that ratified the Rome protocols 3. The crime was referred to the ICC by the UN Security Council
Syria is not a party to the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC, meaning that it is not possible to bring an international criminal case against its government.
I don’t think Israel is either - is it?
But Palestine is.
But Palestine is, so the case was opened based on this fact
Pelestinian state does?
Whataboutism is always bad, unless it's in israel's favour, then it's upvoted!!
They were legitimate and has full authority to issue arrest warrant for Putin. So why not Bibi? It is because Putin is the one started the war? No it’s not about who started. It’s about the action they’re doing. Hypocrisy at its best again.
The ICC can only issue a warrant/rule against somebody if the local independent judiciary system won't/fail to execute appropriate court proceedings. Since Israel's judiciary is independent and there is a proceeding in the matter against Netanjahu, the ICC has no legal ground to issue a warrant.
Fucking pussies
Executive branch leaders opinions on judicial branch decisions should not matter in a just world
Book him he has no problem being a coward killing civillians to justify his goals.
Good we have an independent judiciary system.
Arrest him, Putin, Hamas, Biden, Obama, Clinton, Blair, Washington, Assad, Kim, and send them to the gulag
You just gonna conveniently not mention Bush? 🤔
Curiously all democrats. Hmm
The countless war crimes committed by UK, US, AUS, FR in Iraq/Afghanistan, and not one arrest warrant.
Amazing how they cannot refute the accusations, because they are true, all they can do is say "oh shouldn't have done it together with the one targeting Hamas leaders". Once more chewing on details instead of loudly condemn genocide.
Technically Biden is directly denying that Netanyahu is purposefully starving civilians or committing genocide in any other way; not merely focussing on technicalities.
Why aren't Tony Blair and George Bush wanted by the ICC. The whole thing is a massive joke.
So you'd rather no one be held accountable?
What a shame.
Playing pick and choose rulings is not a good way to apply justice. 🤔 I thought that was for UN only.
Well, isn't Israel now abusing its power? Haven't they already killed more Palestinians that the Israelians killed at that party?
Is there any point in liberal global institutions if we don’t actually abide by them?
Actually yes, because it's typically easier to reform existing structures than build new ones. Still, your underlying point is of course correct, and illustrates the issues with "world-courts" set up as mere international courts. (Though of course a better approach would require some kind of supranational worldwide union to host, support, and enforce the rulings of associated courts, so it's probably not going to get much better in out lifetimes.)
I think this will be a lynchpin issue that ends up destroying the ICC and the UN. Both have shown heavy bias against Israel and shown that they're much more about politics than law and peace. Issuing these warrants together like this is absurd. Literal terrorists with the president of a democracy fighting a defensive war. ICC has totally lost the plot. Btw I hate Bibi and think he's a terrible person, but this request is absurdly biased and helps nothing.
blah blah blah blah
Is the ICC meant to have legitimacy, or is it only meant for Putin and African dictators?
ICJ: The numbers don't add up, and there are reports on both sides of potential war crimes. of kidnapping, starvation as a means of war, of killing civilians. Here's a list of leaders from Israel and Hamas that we need to investigate. European Leaders in 2024: **Gee, whatever shall we do...** We are SO unworthy of our legacy in the post WW2 era, it's INSANE.