Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
What Action Has The International Criminal Court Ever Taken...
...against the USA that would prompt Trump to issue sanctions against it?
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sandyRoe. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The ICC enforces what it quaintly calls "international law".
In fact there is no such thing. What is termed international law is a series of agreements and Treaties which some, though not all, countries have agreed to. Partcipants are free to join or derogate from those agreements so they are not "law" at all because they can be ignored.
The USA imposed sanctions on the ICC during the first Trump Presidency At that time, President Trump is on record as stating "As far as America is concerned the ICC has no jurisdiction, no legitimacy, and no authority.”.
This is quite correct. The USA is not party to the agreement which covers the ICC and so are not bound by any of its actions. As well as the USA, China and India have also not ratified the ICC Treaty. These three countries together account for almost half of the global population.
This latest spat stems follows he ICC issuing "international arrest warrants" against Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his former defence minister Yoav Gallant, and Hamas' Mohammed Deif saying they bear "criminal responsibility for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity".
The White House accused the Hague-based court of creating a "shameful moral equivalency" between Hamas and Israel by issuing the warrants at the same time.
The Presiden's earlier executive order said the ICC's recent actions "set a dangerous precedent" that endangered Americans by exposing them to "harassment, abuse and possible arrest" and that the court "threatens to infringe upon the sovereignty of the United States".
This last accusation is very appropriate because it has parallels here, with the influence of the ECHR over the UK's domestic affairs.
Mr Starmer and his mate, the Attorney-General Baron Richard Hermer adore what they also call international law and value it above domestic legislation. The result is that decisions made by a court which similarly lacks legitimacy make the job of governing the UK in the best interests of its citizens that much harder.
Like many supra-national organisations, the ICC has ideas which are considerably above its station. The notion that it expects countries such as the USA (a non-ICC participant) to arrest the Prime Minister of a friendly nation (also a non-ICC participant) whilst he is accepting their hospitality is absolutely ludicrous.
^Now you know, sandyRoe.
Sorry I didn't make it clear.
The parallel being the influence that each (the ICC and he ECHR) has on the prosecution of domestic matters. Supra-national courts can frustrate domestic courts in their attempts to implement the will of their legislatures. That frustration jeopardises the supremacy of domestic parliaments.
President Trump recognised this during his first Presidency and did something about it. He continues this recogniion into his second term.
By contrast many other leaders, especially our own in the UK, either fail to recognise it or, if they do, they are quite content with it. I prefer the latter because I believe that many UK politicians are more than happy to have a ready explanation for their opponents to show why they cannot do what the elctorate wants.
The President has pledged to do do what he said he would during his campaign and he is not prepared to be frusrated by foreign courts.
Thank you New Judge,thats sent sandyRoe on his way with a flea in his ear.
the ICC was established in the wake of the atrocities committed during the balkan wars and the rwandan genocide. the idea was that participants would agree to treat certain things as crimes even if they happened in another sovereign state... the balkan wars and rwanda were both "domestic matters" after all and the people who carried out massacres would have liked nothing better than to be left to their murderous business. they proved that the atrocities of the 1940s could one day happen again and that the world had not done enough to prevent this. The ICC is the best attempt so far.
if "sovereignty" extends to committing crimes against humanity then sovereignty should be violated.the only people who seriously object to the icc are people who wish to get on with nasty violent businesses such as ethnic cleansing or mass murder unimpeded. autocrats, genocidal movements, and their followers.
Our Magna Carta and the Us Constitution( to give only 2 examples) clearly codify a set of rights for the citizens who choose to live under its jurisdiction. ""The content of the “international human rights” world is whatever politicians and activists at any given moment want to push. Most international “human rights law” is the product of real or imagined “consensus” forged by “experts.” The European Court of Human Rights, for example, subscribes to a version of “living constitutionalism,” claiming that our understanding of human rights “evolves.” Whatever is perfectly legitimate today may be utterly forbidden tomorrow.""
"" Much of what passes as “human rights” is not explicitly spelled out. It’s “consensus” based on what interested parties want to promote. A lot of what passes for human rights meets none of those tests. Principles mostly made up as you go along are neither principles nor good practice.""
Some of that was taken from a very accurate and consise article. The article is in the link below for any who have reservations that they find difficult to articulate.
https:/
These days there seems to be a number of courts it would be in our interest not to be part of. The ECHR is an obvious one, but reading the Telegraph's story on Caribbean demands for an undeserved handout, the view of International Court of Justice judge, Patrick Robinson, suggests it too starts to look an organisation unfit for our support. We ought to at least be seen to be considering our position.
“You were clear. You just weren't right.”
I believe I was.
I mentioned the parallel with reference to the last accusation in this:
The Presiden's earlier executive order said the ICC's recent actions "set a dangerous precedent" that endangered Americans by exposing them to "harassment, abuse and possible arrest" and that the court "threatens to infringe upon the sovereignty of the United States".
It is clear that decisions made by the ECHR similarly threaten the integrity of the UK’s sovereignty and its right to make its own decisions about what happens here.
The parallel is that both countries and its citizens are subject to the decisions of a foreign court. The fact that one has consented to its jurisdiction and the other has not is not the issue. The threat to both is the same.
“if "sovereignty" extends to committing crimes against humanity then sovereignty should be violated.the only people who seriously object to the icc are people who wish to get on with nasty violent businesses such as ethnic cleansing or mass murder unimpeded.”
You misunderstand. Sovereignty extends to a country’s legislature being the sole arbiter of what happens within it and those decisions not being overruled by foreign powers. As with the EU and the ECHR, the merits of he ICC’s decisions and penalties they impose are not the issue. It’s the fact that those bodies can make those decisions, which may be contrary to the wishes and the best interests of individual nations and their citizens, that is the concern.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Body & Soul5 mins ago
Peoples Names You Can't Shorten
ChatterBank6 mins ago
I Wonder What This Little Child Did..
News23 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.