World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Biden can't save him, because we wouldn't agree to the Rome act because we thought that somehow meant we couldn't be charged at the Hauge for our war crimes. That's not true tho, we don't have to agree to it.
I mean… yes you do, since that’s a little bit how international law works? Countries who do not sign and ratify the Rome statute and then remain in there aren’t governed by the ICC in the same way.
You will see in the excerpt you quoted, the reason the ICC believes it has jurisdiction is because of events taking place in Palestine, which has taken part in the Rome Statute previously.
And the United States has a law that says it will militarily invade The Hague if any US service member is arrested and held by the court. It came about along with all the other legislative bullshit in the years after 9/11/01. The US had previously been a founding member of the ICC, but withdrew for reasons of sovereignty.
Sovereignity, my ass. They just don't want war crimes committed by their own military investigated by an independent body.
Correct.
That position and sovereignty are not mutually opposed, depending on the view you take towards international law.
Hittem with that "sovereignty to do what?"
International law gets weird. Tradition is absolutely a legitimate way for something to get recognized. That works because of Sovereignty and the intense political nature of anything between countries. So basically, if someone got an Israeli to the Hague, then the Netherlands could point at the decades of precedent for the moral high ground in refusing to release them. Whether that works depends on politics and what people think. So just because we didn't sign the paper does not mean we can resist it forever. If the world wants to head in that direction, the best we can do is dig our feet in and make it take longer.
And no sane US president would use the Hague Invasion Act. It's an open question if the military would even follow the order. that would require invading a NATO ally with strong defense systems tied into their neighbors. It would be a great way to obliterate our world standing in one fell swoop.
Of course. It would be insane, but the fact is that it would only be insane because the USA set the tone and has the explicit threat that it would follow through. And don't tell me that you are happy with the stability of the US foreign policy and military apparatus to make well reasoned decisions after the last few... centuries, really... but especially over the last few decades, and after the absolutely monumental shift in US foreign policy before/during/after Trump. The United States leaves plenty of ambiguities to precisely how it would employ its still incredibly powerful military if the world really decided to step to it.
But you're probably referring to customary law, which is always up for even more robust debate between countries than codified international law, assuming they actually deign to engage in debate about it. And a European nation kidnapping the leader of any other country is going to cause all kinds of problems, especially if it happens to be one of the closest allies of the most influential country in the world.
And before anybody thinks I'm ok with this, I am emphatically not. I believe that the US should accept international law more explicitly, and instead of trying to maintain a weird position of moral authority without any actual commitments (which obviously comes off as quite disingenuous, to say the least), it should use its formidable influence and resources to shore up and reinforce these kinds of structures so that everybody is and can always be held accountable in these venues, including itself.
US law doesn’t say that it WILL it says that it CAN. As an American I’d be wayyyy beyond pissed off if we did I to rescue fucking Bibi.
That’s a fair distinction I don’t think I’ve captured. It’s not like the act is a direct action threat aimed at the Netherlands, but the US simply reserves the right.
My understanding is it pretty much gives the president the authority to act immediately, without an explicit act of Congress? I don’t honestly know if it’s even that detailed.
And to your point: agreed. I don’t think it would go well… but I really don’t like how a certain populism is rampant here and all across Europe. Nor how organized they are (in the US) to completely take over once/if they get elected, through their Project 25. Imagine a competent Trump regime if some American committed a war crime and Trump wanted his fucking bin Laden raid, so he sent in the fucking SEALS to “rescue” them.
By your logic the nazis shouldn't have been tried at the Hauge...
Is that what youre intentionally saying? Or did you not think it through?
Like even this bit:
If no US service member could be tried at the Hauge because the US didn't sign the Rome agreement...
Why pass a law saying we're not subject to it?
And when did Bibi join the US military anyways?
I missed that one...
First: it’s not my logic. It’s how this part of international law works. The International Criminal Court wasn’t created until 1998, and the statute that governs it only officially came into power in 2002. Not all countries have signed, and some (including the US) have withdrawn from it. This means that technically the ICC doesn’t have any jurisdiction over things that happen within its territory.
The US codified it into a domestic law because it doesn’t believe its should be beholden to any law higher than its domestic ones, and the United States often does shady things in countries where the ICC does have jurisdiction, making it a risk that US citizens (and leaders) can be arrested for crimes that occur there. So the US Congress wrote domestic policy stating that it reserved the right to invade if its citizens were held for trial.
And Bibi didn’t join the US military. But the US has shown it’s willing to support his administration through an awful lot of shit, and the US doesn’t have any ambiguity about how it regards the ICC.
Finally, are you referring to the Nuremberg trials? Nazis weren’t tried in The Hague court we are discussing, and I’m not sure any nazi trials happened there at all.
Edit: I don’t understand the downvotes. This is literally just how the International Criminal Court works.
Well that's not true. Our Constitution clearly places treaties above domestic law.
Where and how? And anyways it's kind of irrelevant, since foreign treaties are still entered into willingly and are ratified by the United States Congress, making them indistinguishable to domestic laws, as far as whether the US government will adhere to them.
What I am referring to is the concern that any entity other than the United States will be able to dictate united States policy or restrict it pursuing its interest as it sees fit. There are plenty of opportunities where this is obvious in US policies: for one example the United States is not party the to United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea for the explicit reasons I state, even though functionally it follows the same law because it accepts it as effectively being international law; but if it went against it for any reason in the future, any dissenting parties would not be able to use any of its mechanisms for conflict arbitration (if any, I'm not an expert in UNCLOS). Another would be how it refuses to allow the functioning of the Appellate Body a the World Trade Organization.
...
https://www.roberthjackson.org/speech-and-writing/the-influence-of-the-nuremberg-trial-on-international-criminal-law/
I think that will help you understand
Yes, the origin of one of the international courts in The Hague, specifically the one that prosecutes individuals, the International Criminal Court, comes from the Nuremberg Trials. I never disputed that lineage. Those nazi trials happened in Nuremberg, not The Hague, and before the ICC existed.
The ICC was created in 2002, just FYI. So long after the Nuremberg Trials. And the ICJ predates Nuremberg via its predecessor entities.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court
You're meaningfully correct in everything you're saying though. Just saying this for full context
Thanks for clarifying, I’m aware of that and I think I made mention to that date in my initial reply.
What you quoted was just referring to the article the other poster linked, which goes through how the Nuremberg trials were the primary venue of defining the four major crimes against humanity, and how it impacted the creation of the ICC later.
I am obviously having a hard time articulating my point here, though. I’m literally just trying to explain a little bit about how this particular facet of an international legal regime works.
Fun fact about the ICJ, though: the USA withdrew from the court after it was found guilty of mining Nicaragua illegally. I really wish it did more to actually follow the legal norms it tried to push in its ideology.
Edit: mixed up ICJ and ICC at the end.