Is he afraid he could become the next target of an investigation/warrant of the ICC?
Anyhow the world is changing very quickly and nowadays not doing business with the united states or not using the dollar, is less and less of a problem.
I genuinely believe that conservatives hate the ICC because they know that the US would have to answer for all its crimes if the ICC had power over the US.
Anyhow the world is changing very quickly and nowadays not doing business with the united states or not using the dollar, is less and less of a problem.
While I agree on the surface, these sanctions also include any American companies. You can’t use most email providers, because most are based in the US. You can’t use any debit or credit cards, because MasterCard and Visa are both American companies that will block your access. You can’t use any cloud storage providers, because they’re all American. You can’t have a Google account for your phone. You can’t even use a Microsoft account to log into your Windows PC.
And sure, lemmings will say that all of those are good things. We’re happy in our little “self-host everything, delete all the cloud accounts, avoid being tracked by any means possible, etc” bubble. But the average person barely even knows how to open a web browser, and panics when their password needs to be reset.
It basically forces you to live as a Luddite, because the vast majority of the internet, modern banking, etc will (at least tangentially) touch American commerce in some way. And the average person isn’t even close to being well-enough prepared for that kind of upheaval.
That’s a little narrow, it’s also been shit at holding anybody with Veto power accountable, including China, France, UK, USA, and USSR/Russia. It’s also failed in nations like Lybia under Muammar Gaddafi (and even now) and Sudan during the civil war.
No, he’s not afraid of that because the US is not a party of the ICC and the American Service Members Protection act prohibits US courts, agencies, entities of state or local government from cooperating with the ICC and further
The President is authorized to use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any person described in subsection (b) who is being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal
Court.
The definitions of the people described in subsection b are:
COVERED ALLIED PERSONS.—The term ‘‘covered allied persons’’ means military personnel, elected or appointed officials, and other persons employed by or working on behalf of the government of a NATO member country, a major non-NATO ally (including Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Argentina, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand), or Taiwan,
for so long as that government is not a party to the Inter-national Criminal Court and wishes its officials and other persons working on its behalf to be exempted from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.
(4) COVERED UNITED STATES PERSONS.—The term ‘‘covered United States persons’’ means members of the Armed Forces of the United States, elected or appointed officials of the United States Government, and other persons employed by or working on behalf of the United States Government, for so long as the United States is not a party to the International Criminal Court.
Anyone who assisted the investigation or arrest by supplying information or funding would be breaking US law.
Israel isn’t a member of the ICC but there is still a warrant out for Bibi. Member countries have to abide by the rules of the court. So if Trump travels to France, he can be arrested, even though the US is not a member
I mention not being a party to the ICC to introduce the US law that makes supporting the ICC illegal. If Trump was arrested, he could expect military intervention.
If it was France who arrested him, they could expect that the US would revisit the exception to section 2007, which allows NATO to exist. Otherwise, military assistance to nations that are party to the ICC is prohibited (with a few other exceptions listed).
The Netanyahu arrest warrant is controversial because of the jurisdiction issue.
Here’s what Wikipedia says about the ICC’s jurisdiction:
The ICC can generally exercise jurisdiction in cases where the accused is a national of a state party, the alleged crime took place on the territory of a state party, or a situation is referred to the Court by the United Nations Security Council.
If Israel is not a state party to the ICC, there are two remaining possibilities that I can see:
the court is acting on referral from the UNSC (I haven’t heard of such a thing, and it seems like the US would veto).
the court is claiming that Palestine is a state party to the court. In order to make this claim, one must first also establish that Palestine is a state.
And in fact, France took the position that it would not enforce the warrant because the court lacks jurisdiction.
EDIT: I finally found a source on the ICC’s position on this jurisdiction question. The ICC ruling is that the state of Palestine signed onto the Rome Statute in 2015, and the ICC accepted Palestine’s membership in 2021. And that this gives ICC jurisdiction within the territory of the West Bank and Gaza going back to 2014.
The 2021 court ruling explicitly determined that Palestine is a state.
And in fact, France took the position that it would not enforce the warrant because the court lacks jurisdiction.
That same article says that they are required to enforce it
Is Netanyahu immune from the ICC arrest warrants as France claims?
No.
And says
The French argument appears to centre around Article 98 of the Rome Statute…Some 124 countries have ratified the Rome Statute, but Israel is not a signatory.
It’s funny that France says Israel hasn’t signed onto the ICC and is therefore immune based of the Rome Statute…but Israel hasn’t signed onto the Rome Statute either, so it doesn’t apply.
Regardless of France’s pussyfooting, the ICC says that members have an obligation to adhere to the warrants.
According to corroborating sources, this statement was meant to avoid severing ties with the Israeli prime minister, who contested the role of mediator claimed by Paris in the search for a hard-fought ceasefire in Lebanon, announced on Tuesday evening by Joe Biden and Emmanuel Macron.
I don’t follow your argument. I think you are saying the current government does not respect US law in their quest to achieve their goals. If their leader was arrested, do you think they would just be chill about it?
The warrant for Putin is with respect to crimes in Ukraine. Ukraine is not a member, but gave authorization to the ICC to investigate certain crimes, and agreed to cooperate.
The warrant for Netanyahu is via Palestine, who is a member.
The Rome Statute makes activities in signatory nations part of their jurisdiction, which is part of the reason the law I mentioned was enacted.
Is he afraid he could become the next target of an investigation/warrant of the ICC?
Anyhow the world is changing very quickly and nowadays not doing business with the united states or not using the dollar, is less and less of a problem.
I genuinely believe that conservatives hate the ICC because they know that the US would have to answer for all its crimes if the ICC had power over the US.
While I agree on the surface, these sanctions also include any American companies. You can’t use most email providers, because most are based in the US. You can’t use any debit or credit cards, because MasterCard and Visa are both American companies that will block your access. You can’t use any cloud storage providers, because they’re all American. You can’t have a Google account for your phone. You can’t even use a Microsoft account to log into your Windows PC.
And sure, lemmings will say that all of those are good things. We’re happy in our little “self-host everything, delete all the cloud accounts, avoid being tracked by any means possible, etc” bubble. But the average person barely even knows how to open a web browser, and panics when their password needs to be reset.
It basically forces you to live as a Luddite, because the vast majority of the internet, modern banking, etc will (at least tangentially) touch American commerce in some way. And the average person isn’t even close to being well-enough prepared for that kind of upheaval.
Unfortunately it very often leads to doing more business with China and the Won, which is very much a growing problem.
Not likely. The ICC rarely targets government officials from rich/Western countries, because it knows perfectly well how that’ll turn out.
Also, the US is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, meaning the US is under no obligation to act on warrants or investigations issued by the ICC.
He would have to step foot in a country that is, and one that respects its obligations towards the ICC.
That’s a little narrow, it’s also been shit at holding anybody with Veto power accountable, including China, France, UK, USA, and USSR/Russia. It’s also failed in nations like Lybia under Muammar Gaddafi (and even now) and Sudan during the civil war.
No, he’s not afraid of that because the US is not a party of the ICC and the American Service Members Protection act prohibits US courts, agencies, entities of state or local government from cooperating with the ICC and further
The definitions of the people described in subsection b are:
Anyone who assisted the investigation or arrest by supplying information or funding would be breaking US law.
Israel isn’t a member of the ICC but there is still a warrant out for Bibi. Member countries have to abide by the rules of the court. So if Trump travels to France, he can be arrested, even though the US is not a member
I mention not being a party to the ICC to introduce the US law that makes supporting the ICC illegal. If Trump was arrested, he could expect military intervention.
If it was France who arrested him, they could expect that the US would revisit the exception to section 2007, which allows NATO to exist. Otherwise, military assistance to nations that are party to the ICC is prohibited (with a few other exceptions listed).
The Netanyahu arrest warrant is controversial because of the jurisdiction issue.
Here’s what Wikipedia says about the ICC’s jurisdiction:
If Israel is not a state party to the ICC, there are two remaining possibilities that I can see:
And in fact, France took the position that it would not enforce the warrant because the court lacks jurisdiction.
EDIT: I finally found a source on the ICC’s position on this jurisdiction question. The ICC ruling is that the state of Palestine signed onto the Rome Statute in 2015, and the ICC accepted Palestine’s membership in 2021. And that this gives ICC jurisdiction within the territory of the West Bank and Gaza going back to 2014.
The 2021 court ruling explicitly determined that Palestine is a state.
That same article says that they are required to enforce it
And says
It’s funny that France says Israel hasn’t signed onto the ICC and is therefore immune based of the Rome Statute…but Israel hasn’t signed onto the Rome Statute either, so it doesn’t apply.
Regardless of France’s pussyfooting, the ICC says that members have an obligation to adhere to the warrants.
The article says France says it’s about jurisdiction, but specifically about the idea that a head of state has diplomatic immunity.
If Israel was a signatory that argument couldn’t apply because they would have agreed to be subject to the ICC.
Eta more context: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/11/28/why-france-offered-netanyahu-concessions-over-icc-arrest-warrant_6734435_4.html
Well “US Law” means nothing these days… it’s down there with “thoughts and prayers” and “no, that dress doesn’t make you look fat”
I don’t follow your argument. I think you are saying the current government does not respect US law in their quest to achieve their goals. If their leader was arrested, do you think they would just be chill about it?
No, I was not making an argument. I was just trash talking the USA as the lawless dumpster it has become
I’m pretty sure the same applies for Russia and Israel, and yet the ICC is after their presidents for breaking “other laws”.
The warrant for Putin is with respect to crimes in Ukraine. Ukraine is not a member, but gave authorization to the ICC to investigate certain crimes, and agreed to cooperate.
The warrant for Netanyahu is via Palestine, who is a member.
The Rome Statute makes activities in signatory nations part of their jurisdiction, which is part of the reason the law I mentioned was enacted.