It does not. NATO membership is the initiative of Eastern European governments out of fear that Russia will invade them if they remain neutral like Ukraine, against hesitancy and skepticism of North America and Western Europe who thought until last year that this is a silly idea and a manifestation of historic trauma, and not a real danger.
Hence the US helped Hitler get elected, hence they helped zelensky get elected
It's easier to ignore history books and follow a government propaganda, you don't have to think! saves some neurons, or perhaps that's because we don't need them stupid neurons
Iraq is not a State Party to the Rome Statute (nor is it a nonparty that voluntarily acceded to ICC jurisdiction on its territory for the time in question), and therefore the ICC does not have jurisdiction on a territorial basis for war crimes in Iraq. The US is not a State Party to the Rome Statute, and therefore the ICC does not have jurisdiction on the basis of nationality over war crimes committed by Americans. It needs one or the other to exercise jurisdiction over war crimes. (The ICC did conduct an investigation of allegations of UK war crimes in Iraq, over which it would have jurisdiction as the UK is a State Party. ) [0]
Ukraine is also not a State Party to the Rome Statue, but has made a declaration accepting ICC jurisdiction for war crimes on its territory twice (first for crimes between 21 November 2013 to 22 February 2014 and then a second open-ended declaration covering the time period from 20 February 2014 onwards. As a result, the ICC has jurisdiction on a territorial basis for crimes committed within the territory of Ukraine from 21 November 2013 onwards.
> they didn’t do shit for Ukraine arming people in the donbas in 2014
Arming people within your sovereign territory is not a war crime. (Heck, arming people outside of your sovereign territory is also not a war crime.)
> they don’t do shit for the Israeli colony,
They have not yet reached the point of issuing warrants; they have opened investigations (delayed in part by the process of determining the extent of the court’s territorial jurisdiction given the nature of the situation) and made determinations that there is reasonable basis to believe that IDF, Hamas, and other forces in Palestine have committed specific enumerated war crimes. [1]
> but they do shit for Putin?
Russia in Ukraine has been rather unusually flagrant in its war crimes (largely, I would assume, because of the confidence they feel in their impunity.)
Right, Russia being neither a party nor a non-party who has acceded to ICC jurisdiction on its territory, war crimes committed on Russian soil are not (by territory) within the jurisdiction of the ICC, so would only be subject to the ICC if committed by nationals of a State Party to the Rome Statute. But crimes in Russia aren’t at issue.
> And neither is ukriane.
Ukraine is a non-party that has voluntarily submitted to ICC jurisdiction for war crimes on its territory beginning on a specified date, which gives the ICC the same jurisdiction for such crimes it would have were Ukraine a State Party.
> If that is so, then the ICC has jurisdiction over Ukrainians, not Russians.
No, it has jurisdiction over crimes on Ukrainian territory, regardless of the actors. (Were Ukraine a state party, and not a state that had acceded to territorial jurisdiction without being a party, it would also have jurisdiction over Ukrainian personnel, irrespective of territorial considerations.)
> So Britain ( party to ICC ) could murder children in Libya but that’s okay
No, because Britian is an ICC party, ICC has jurisdiction over its troops anywhere without needing territorial jurisdiction, which is why there was an extensive ICC investigation and report based on allegations of UK war crimes in Iraq. Were reports made to the ICC of UK alleged war crimes in Libya, they would be subject to its jurisdiction.
> No, it has jurisdiction over crimes on Ukrainian territory, regardless of the actors.
That's not how it works. Russia isn't party to the ICC. Lets see which is more likely. Russia arrests the members of ICC or the ICC arresting putin.
> No, because Britian is an ICC party
And yet, in all the wars and murders of millions of children, not a single prosecution of a brit.
The ICC being in the hague is like the trial of harvey weinstein being held in his house with him as the judge. It makes a mockery of justice by making the criminals the judges. But that's what the ICC is. A mockery of justice.
> Lets see which is more likely. Russia arrests the members of ICC or the ICC arresting putin.
Since the “members of the ICC” are countries and the ICC doesn’t arrest people (countries do, and transfer them to the ICC), both are equally impossible.
Not sure what you are even trying to say, much less what point you are trying to make.
> And yet, in all the wars and murders of millions of children, not a single prosecution of a brit.
There is only war in which allegations against UK personnel were made to the ICC, and there’s a 180+ page report on the investigation.
> The ICC being in the hague is like the trial of harvey weinstein being held in his house with him as the judge.
I think you’ve confused physical location with…who the judges are; geographically, the judges are from:
Western Europe and Other* (5), Africa (4), Latin America & Carribean (3), Asia (3), Eastern Europe (3)
> It isn't about Russians or Russia. But the root cause of the crimes committed in Ukraine.
NATO imperialism? I don't think the ICC is going after anyone in NATO.
> Now he faces arrest on any soil where ICC has juristiction, no matter where they come from or currently reside.
That's funny. Putin wouldn't even face arrest in the netherlands. How many nukes do you think the netherlands is willing to suffer to arrest putin?
> => 123 countries or so, not Russia.
Countries that are not party to ICC - US, Russia, China, India, Turkey, Indonesia, etc...
The oldest democracy. The largest demographic democracy. The largest geographic democracy. The largest islamic democracy. Are not party to the ICC. It's almost like the ICC is the enemy of democracy. Hopefully the great democracies of the world put an end to the ICC.
It's Russian imperialism, NATO doesn't occupy any countries, it's a defensive treaty. A very popular one these days, unlike the CSTO were members are trying to flee from the treaty.
You funny with your whataboutism!
The Netherlands happens to be one of the starchest supporters of Ukraine with military, financial and humanitarian support, considering population size. :)
Try a better example next time? You sound like Russia, treathening with nukes, those daily threats are getting kinda old...
And you probably picked the worst example possible :).
> They almost exclusively target africans, middle easterners, etc.
That's because the last major war in Europe (before the current round of Russian aggression) was before the ICC; the ICC was a follow-on to special ad hoc tribunals for individual situations, one of the most significant being the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, which targeted, almost exclusively, Europeans.
> Wonder why the ICC isn’t targeting anyone from france, britain, etc for Libya or Syria.
Because they’ve gotten no reports of such crimes? (Unlike the UK in Iraq, where they did, and performed an extensive investigation and report, ultimately concluding no basis for charges at the Court.)
