The International Criminal Court is seeking the arrest warrants on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity over the October 7 attacks on Israel and the subsequent war in Gaza.
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:
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.
If no US service member could be tried at the Hauge because the US didn’t sign the Rome agreement…
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 Not all countries have signed, and some (including the US) have withdrawn from it.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.
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 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.
The ICC was created in 2002, just FYI. So long after the Nuremberg Trials. And the ICJ predates Nuremberg via its predecessor entities.
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.
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.
…
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.