You are assuming the court isn't a political thing that is trying to get him regardless of evidence. The court is at least partially political, and Netanyahu will tell you this is entirely political and he wouldn't get a fair trail.
Courts are political entities but this is one that Israel chose to accept and recognize the authority of. It has a history of being very transparent in its decisions and is widely recognized as being neutral and fair in their decision making process.
Of course the person charged and found guilty of a crime will argue against the court. Disagreement, even if valid, doesn't change the recognized authority of this court even if the "teeth" are extremely limited.
> Courts are political entities but this is one that Israel chose to accept
For what it’s worth, Israel signed the Rome Statute establishing the court in 2000 but declared in 2002 it no longer intends to ratify it[1]. (Which, I guess, is marginally better than the US, which has threatened The Hague with military invasion in case any arrests are made[2]. But not by much.) TFA specifically points out that “States are not entitled to challenge the Court’s jurisdiction under article 19(2) prior to the issuance of a warrant of arrest.”
If we are going to discuss the diplomatic and international implications of the ICC, it is important to note that the security—and even the continued existence as independent, sovereign entities—of the countries supporting the court is overwhelmingly reliant on the U.S. military umbrella. Without this protection, their sovereignty would quickly be at risk.
I'm not sure you are right. Take a look at this map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court . I don't think "overwhelmingly reliant on the US" is an accurate description of the green countries on that map. Partially reliant sure. But not overwhelmingly.
You don't? I suggest you look at the figures for who is providing aid to Ukraine and ask yourself why the green nations in Europe are paying so much less than the US to fight Russia.
This is why Trump won again, by the way. Because Europe expected the US to fund their defense in this war, and people who do not live in cities with access to the global market see no benefit to aiding Europe and voted that Europe should pay for its own defense.
I guess now we'll get to see what happens when the US lets those European nations that are shaded green defend themselves without us.
> ask yourself why the green nations in Europe are paying so much less than the US to fight Russia
Oh, this is simple. Ukraine would be able to defend itself if it kept nuclear weapons. However they signed a treaty with USA, UK and Russia and gave up their nuclear weapons in exchange for some security guarantees. Russia did not honor that agreement. If USA and UK fail to provide adequate support, nobody will sign such treaties again. What’s even worse, nuclear arms are becoming the only real security guarantee, so the fate of Ukraine defines the fate of nuclear non-proliferation.
Ukraine couldn't have kept nuclear weapons. It needs a lot of technical expertise to do that, particularly in today's world where you only test them in simulation which means you need great ability to trust your simulations. Ukraine didn't even have the keys to use the weapons they had (Russia did) which means they needed to first rebuild each with new keys. Not that Ukraine couldn't do all that, but they just don't have the money to do that and everything else they also need to do. Nuclear weapons are an obvious first thing to go because they are only useful in a situation where you want to end the world. In almost all cases it is better to be able to defend yourself without ending the world.
North Korea is poorer country with less resources, yet they manage to work on their own nuclear program. It is not impossible task, just a matter of priorities. And it’s a really good deterrent.
No countries in Africa and Latin America would enforce the ICC arrest request for Putin. Concerning the rest of Europe, with the exception of the only military power left: France, are you arguing they could defend their sovereignty without the USA military big stick?
Who does Europe need to defend itself against? Russia can't invade Ukraine, and it has 1/10 the population (less?) and arms that are leftovers from European armories (and US armories). Is China going to roll troops across a continent?
Also worth mentioning that without the United States the present continental European militaries would struggle even against the battered ground forces of Russia. Can't really fight back with GDP of your service economy alone.
North Korea is being being paid by Russia to supply troops. Russia cannot afford Chinese troops. And even if they could afford them, China is throwing its weight around Asia and wants its military intact there.
Sure, and North Korea wants to man its border for the eventuality of war with the South. At least that's what everyone would have said before it happened. NK troops in Ukraine weren't on anyone's bingo card.
North Korea is involved in it for the same reason countries send military observers to conflicts.
It hasn't fought a war in decades, and it needs to figure out whether or not any of its shit/doctrines/etc works. It doesn't actually give a rat's ass about Crimea or Ukraine or Russian claims.
It fully relies on friendly logistics to participate in the conflict.
Absolutely not. North Korea is essentially selling mercenary services to Russia. They're the only country that will really do that, and they will have to rely on the pretty broken Russian supply lines to do so. And Russia probably won't even be able to afford to pay for a second wave from North Korea.
What the war in Ukraine is showing is that Russia is capable of running a wartime economy, cranking out artillery shells etc at replacement rates, while Europe, so far, has not demonstrated the ability to do so, which is why supplies are dwindling - you can only run so far on existing stocks.
It should also be noted that Ukraine has been preparing for this exact scenario since 2014, building massive fortifications in the east (which is precisely why the Russian advance there has always been such a grind).
In the event of an open confrontation between Russia and European countries currently backing Ukraine, it's not at all a given that the latter can hold significantly better than Ukraine does today, without American help. European armed forces are generally in a pathetic shape, grossly undermanned and underfunded, and would simply run out of materiel before Russia runs out of bodies to throw at them.
Russia's economy is tanking fast. Their wartime economy, in addition to crushing the civilian economy, has already hit it's peak. Russia is pretty much running low on bodies just in Ukraine. They've already emptied the jails.
Europe doesn't produce artillery shells because NATO (even NATO minus US) can drop bombs after air superiority instead.
Most importantly, Ukraine is doing this well with politically imposed limits on what they can do with those weapons. In a Russia vs. NATO minus US war, Russia will have to defend against deep strikes on critical infrastructure.
The problem with all this stuff is that we've heard "Russia's economy is tanking fast" already during the first year of the war, and yet...
As far as "running out of bodies", the more accurate statement would be "running out of volunteers". While much has been made of Russia emptying its prisons, this ignores the fact that the majority of its fighting force are people who come to fight willingly, largely because of pay. Ukraine, on the other hand, has to rely on forced mobilization. At some point, Russia will do the same if needed - and yes, the regime doesn't want to do it because of political cost associated with it, but they absolutely can pull that off if and when they needed.
The notion that you can "just drop bombs after air superiority" hinges on the ability to establish said air superiority. US might be able to pull that off against Russia, but I very much doubt that Europe can. Not to mention that bombs also run out.
Obviously bombs can run out. But that's why major NATO countries have stockpiles of bombs and the ability to produce them. The fact that they didn't maintain large scale artillery shell production isn't relevant to whether they maintained bomb production. I would guess that European NATO could maintain air superiority. The Ukrainians seem to have denied Russia air superiority without the benefit of anywhere near as large an air force.
Russia has been importing soldiers from third-party countries. It does not speak well for the state of your armed forces if every growing percentages of your troops aren't even your own citizens.
Meanwhile, Russia's economy has been collapsing over the past two years. Their central bank has a 21% interest rate, there a million jobs they cannot fill because those people are off fighting a war (it may only be 500,000 jobs, accounts differ). It's backstopped by being a petrostate so they have oil money as a country, but that only papers over things for so long.
Like I said, we've heard "Russia's economy is collapsing" for 3 years straight now. I even believed it myself for the first year, but I have relatives actually living there - who aren't even pro-war - and the picture painted in the Western press has little to do with realities on the ground. Right now the economy is booming as far as most people are concerned. How sustainable it all is, is a good question, but given that the same people making the doom and gloom predictions long ago, I don't see why I should continue listening to them.
As far as Ukraine being able to deny Russian air superiority, that is evidence towards my point that Russia would similarly be able to deny air superiority to any European force. Westerners are way too used to fighting colonial wars against people whose best AA weapon is an old Stinger, but these things work very differently against a more or less modern power.
The lack of manpower is, again, for political reasons. Mobilization wouldn't be any more popular in Russia than it is in Ukraine. So they want to avoid it if they can by hiring mercs as replacement troops, whether from the heretofore neglected Russian province or from abroad like with NK forces. But make no mistake, Russia can do mobilization if it needs to, and they have more enforcement mechanisms for it compared to Ukraine, not to mention larger reserves. This is partly why the higher-ups are okay with such high losses, and it takes truly massive screw-ups for generals to get kicked out - the government doesn't see those losses as unsustainable.
You're making two arguments it seems,
1. Who is enforcing the arrest warrant against Putin, which I don't get, how should Europe or an African or Latin American country enforce the warrant enforce the warrant without Putin travelling there? I seriously doubt Putin would travel to a country where risks arrest. Or are you suggesting countries should invade Russia to arrest Putin. I don't see anyone including the US (thankfully) doing that. AFAIK that would also constitute a violation of international law (mind you many western countries really only care as long as it suits them, the whole Israel situation being a clear example).
2. The question if Europe could defend itself against invasion without the US. Defend against whom I have to ask, the only possible aggressor would be Russia, but Russia is struggling with their Ukraine invasion, a much smaller, less trained, less equipped force than Nato even without the US. The suggestion that Russia is in any position to threaten Europe is absolutely laughable. The only way that would happen is using nuclear weapons, and once we go down that path the whole world is f*ckd.
> South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has asked permission from the International Criminal Court not to arrest Russia's Vladimir Putin, because to do so would amount to a declaration of war, a local court submission published on Tuesday showed.
> On Saturday, while in India for a Group of 20 nations meeting, Lula told a local interviewer that there was "no way" Putin would be arrested if he attended next year's summit, which is due to be held in Rio de Janeiro.
So it's not "No countries in Latin America", then.
And if we're going to use your dataset to extrapolate anything: probably half of them will enforce the warrant.
More substantially: I don't see where you're going with these objections. It's not like I think the warrant will be hugely successful. But it has to be issued and -- until Putin shows a significant readiness to bend -- it has to be kept in place. And it will have some effect. The exact percentage of countries that can be counted on to enforce it on continent X is obviously irrelvant.
I only jumped in because of the obviously vacuous, extremified formulation ("No country will ..."). Obviously they didn't mean it literally, but to underscore their point; but still -- it's a weird habit people unfortunately have on HN.
> And if we're going to use your dataset to extrapolate anything: probably half of them will enforce the warrant.
Even Chile's stated willingness is probably a bit like "if I were a billionaire I'd do <great things>" - easy to say when it's not an actual decision ready to be made.
I like being pedantic as much as the next person, but "small developing countries don't love pissing off big angry ones with nukes" isn't the outrageous conclusion you're portraying it as.
As a follow-up to [2], even more interesting is the text of covered persons:
"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, Argentina, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand"
It’s both, effectively, but the GP is quoting the correct copy of the list.
The prohibition you mention is in 22 USC 7426:
> (a) PROHIBITION OF MILITARY ASSISTANCE.—Subject to subsections (b) and (c), and effective 1 year after the date on which the Rome Statute enters into force pursuant to Article 126 of the Rome Statute, no United States military assistance may be provided to the government of a country that is a party to the International Criminal Court.
> [...]
> (d) EXEMPTION.—The prohibition of subsection (a) shall not
apply to the government of—
> (1) a NATO member country;
> (2) a major non-NATO ally (including Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Argentina, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand); or
> (3) Taiwan.
The threat I was talking about is in 22 USC 7427:
> (a) AUTHORITY.—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.
> (b) PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO BE FREED.—The authority of sub-section (a) shall extend to the following persons:
> (1) Covered United States persons.
> (2) Covered allied persons.
> (3) Individuals detained or imprisoned for official actions taken while the individual was a covered United States person or a covered allied person, and in the case of a covered allied person, upon the request of such government.
> [...]
with “covered persons” defined in 22 USC 7432 by essentially the same list as above, as long as those countries do not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC:
> [...]
> (3) 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 International 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.
Israel don't recognize the authority of the International Criminal Court. Palestine, however, does, and therefore the ICC consider these allegations within their jurisdiction. A relevant point is that the UK (under the previous Conservative party government) requested the opportunity to dispute the allegations of war crimes based on this complication, but the new British government did not choose to continue with the objection. No other countries have made objections.
The challenge wasn't based on exactly that, they were trying to argue that a treaty palestine signed with israel precluded palestine from giving icc juridsiction that it didn't have itself.
That said, if it ever gets to trial, the defendants will almost certainly try to challenge it on that basis.
Realistically though i think the chance of that type of challenge succeding is unlikely. International courts generally are above domestic law. They probably have a better chance of convincing the court that palestine isn't a state and thus cannot sign the rome statue (which is also a long shot imo)
> Courts are political entities but this is one that Israel chose to accept and recognize the authority of.
They were replying to this part of the comment which was factually incorrect (Israel did not recognize ICC authority) not on what the challenge on jurisdiction was
Good thing that's not how laws are formed - "your" not recognizing authority doesn't mean "you" haven't committed the war crimes or other illegal act that international organization has charged you with; so far it's worked that veto power can immediately suppress action even when the rest of the organized-civilized world is against you, where so far most international organizations have been for theatre - but where we have an opportunity for them to finally have teeth.
> Germany, the second biggest sponsor of mass slaughter (presently and historically) also claims to be bound by this court, but for some reason ignores it when it is in Israeli interests to do so.
When has germany ever ignored the ICC? I dont think there is a single instance of that, whether involving israel or otherwise.
The government of Germany clearly prefer to side with Israel on any matter related to Palestine (or Lebanon for that matter), but in fairness it has taken this long for the ICC's prosecutor to bring a case. The real tests will begin if, for instance, Netanyahu visits Germany, because that will trigger an obligation for Germany to arrest him. There may of course already be domestic German laws which arms sales to Israel may be breaking, but as far as I'm aware Germany has only had a duty to cooperate with the ICC since the warrant was issued earlier today.
Nicaragua had a go at the German government in March 2024 re. arms sales and could not prevail [0]. I just read an article that claims they have already made a new attempt, which could be more successful in the current situation [1 - in German, sorry]
> Courts are political entities but this is one that Israel chose to accept and recognize the authority of
As far as i am aware, this is a false statement. Israel has been opposed to the ICC since its inception (originally because the first version had a judge selection mechanism they thought was biased against them, although i am sure there are other reasons they object, especially relating to their settlements).
Perhaps you are confusing the ICC with the ICJ, which are totally different things.
Neither Israel nor the de-facto government of Gaza they are fighting ever accepted the authority of the ICC; neither has signed the Rome Treaty.
The ICC authority is being derived from the Palestinian Authority applying for membership and the Court deciding earlier in a 2-1 decision that Palestine is a state, the PA is the legitimate government of Palestine, and that Gaza is territory under its jurisdiction.
> Court deciding earlier in a 2-1 decision that Palestine is a state, the PA is the legitimate government of Palestine, and that Gaza is territory under its jurisdiction.
I think you are overstating it. They made a provisional decision, but just for the purpose of if the investigation can go forward. The decision does not decide whether or not palestine is a state in general, and if this ever goes to trial the defendants can still challenge this decision.
This case was not filed by any country, it was directly filed by Karim Khan, an employee of the ICC.
The court that requires a country to file is the ICJ. Iran is already a signatory to the ICJ and there is nothing that would legally prevent them from filing a case if they wanted to.
I was also curious about parent's claim so I did some searching of my own. The claim is from a report published a few days ago called 'South Africa, Hamas, Iran, and Qatar: The Hijacking of the ANC and the International Court of Justice':
Its author, the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy, is ostensibly American, although I can find no indication of its incorporation in the USA. The Israeli government is the largest donor to the organization according to 'The Forward', which is a newspaper incorporated as a non-profit charity in the USA.
political is..sorta true. the point of these international legal bodies was to maintain and enforce a world order dominated by western powers. it was not about promoting justice (albeit sometimes that happened.) the selective application of enforcement and investigation have reduced the ICC to little more than a tool of neocolonial rule.
the rome statute itself contains provisions that limit its reach. article 98 precludes extradition, which has been abused by the US to prevent US nationals from being tried.
in short the ICC is allowed to go after western geopolitical rivals, however going after an ally whos committing genocide is a bridge too far; they will be shielded. for example: the US pressured its allies to refuse to refer any activities in Afghanistan to the ICC and largely succeeded as its allies form the dominant half of the UN Security council. whats interesting here is the US seems so isolated this time as to have lost the ability to block the referral. perhaps a first in history.
I once had the honor to attend a lecture by a prosecutor of the ICC.
Out of all lawyers/attorneys/prosecutors/judges that I met in my life, that one was the one that I would judge to bet he most idealistic and justice motivated (admittedly based on my gut instinct); a very rare breed.
It's good that there are such institutions with a good purpose, staffed with good people. Bad faith actors - including war criminals - will of course claim agendas (other than bringing justice), deny jurisdiction etc. but it is a good
starting point to have them. The next step is to strive to give these organizations enough "teeth" to execute.
The "individual bully" problem needs some addressing, a solution to that remains outstanding.
There is indeed, as you state, political influence being exerted on courts. Most of that influence is in support of Israel and Netanyahu — do you really think there is significant political power and influence upon the ICC from Palestine or Hamas? Look at the amount AIPAC has contributed to pro-Israel politicians. It’s quite frankly absurd such a political organization exists under the guise of representing American Jews yet pretty much lobbies solely for Israeli geopolitical issues. Kennedy even tried to get it to register as a foreign agent. The fact that these warrants were issued despite the influence and leverage of Israel is a hint at how egregious the crimes are.
Antisemitism is a form of bigotry, no more or less special than other forms of bigotry and racism.
If you read any significant amount of history you'd know that already, and you wouldn't need to prove that Antisemitism is real. Of course it is. So is anti-[insert religious or ethnic group]
Them turning any criticism of Israels actions into antisemitism is making the word worthless, it's almost a badge of honor at this point. And ironically their genocide is creating real antisemitism.
Well, it seems that at least in the case of Palestine, antisemites haven't been able to stop the ICC from addressing the real apartheid, war crimes, and even genocide that Israel is currently conducting in Gaza.
And the only counterweight for a person accused of genocide who is claiming they haven't committed war crimes or genocide, while they call this action "antisemetic" - the only way to determine if they are being genuine in claim it is antisemitism or political-manipulation (demonization) tool is to go to court and see all of the evidence presented.
Either 40,000+ people dead or seemingly nearly all Palestinian's civilian infrastructure being destroyed, both warrant being witnessed and investigated by the international community with a fine tooth comb, no?
The ICC isn't some amateur city court in some backwaters country, it is the current epitome and evolutionary state from effort and passion of humanity towards holding the line for justice.
> And the only counterweight for a person accused of genocide
The ICC has not accused anyone of genocide. It does have juridsiction over personal criminal responsibility for gdnocide, but so far, nothing on that front has been mentioned.
South africa is suing israel at the icj alleging state responsibility for genocide, however that is different from personal responsibility, and different standards of evidence and procedures apply. Its also a totally separate court system.
Straw man argument. I didn't make the claim the ICC accused the ICC of genocide, however Netanyahu is now at minimum now officially wanted for war crimes.
Well when you say "person accused of genocide" in the context of a warrant from a court that has juridsiction over personal responsibility for genocide, its not a leap to assume that is what you meant.
However if you didn't mean that, what did you mean by "person accused of genocide"? Who is accusing them? You personally?
Interesting turn of phrase you used - it is in fact a leap, as you're making assumption you put forward as fact in your mind; how often do you do that?
Countless people are accusing him of genocide, including the ICC, and it certainly looks like a genocide by me; the problem with this discussion is no one defending the side accused of genocide will actually get into details of defining what could actually constitute genocide - so keeping it up in the air vague, which then allows them to not actually stand for it or against it - because there's nothing defined; most people have a wrong legal definition in their head for what constitutes genocide as well.
Personally yes, from what I have seen, the rhetoric from high up Israeli politicians and government officials, I would argue it's genocide.
The ICF has concluded officially as well that it is apartheid - and that those itnernational rules apply to Israel.
> Interesting turn of phrase you used - it is in fact a leap, as you're making assumption you put forward as fact in your mind; how often do you do that?
Well if you wrote clearly we wouldn't have this issue.
> Countless people are accusing him of genocide, including the ICC
The ICC explicitly have not. Perhaps they might in the future, but genocide was not one of the charges. If the icc prosecutor believes he has evidence of genocide occuring he has the authority to request a warrant for it (or request the existing warrant be amended)
As for others, well the icc is basically the only court with competent juridsiction (technically a domestic israel court would also, but it seems pretty unlikely at this point that the israeli gov would arrest their own PM for genocide). I dont find random people very meaningful compared to charges at court where evidence actually has to be presented.
> the problem with this discussion is no one defending the side accused of genocide will actually get into details of defining what could actually constitute genocide
The rome statue defines genocide which would be the definition used by the ICC. It is the same as how the genocide convention defines it which is essentially the official definition.
There is case law on how to specificly interpret the definition. Genocide is not a new concept at this point, and there exists people who have been tried for genocide in the past which has generated case law.
> most people have a wrong legal definition in their head for what constitutes genocide as well.
Yes, i agree that is an issue. However just because people have wrong beliefs does not mean the crime is undefined.
> The ICF has concluded officially as well that it is apartheid
I assume you mean ICJ here? They did not conclude that. They concluded that israel violated "Article 3 of CERD". Article 3 includes apartheid but it also includes other things. The ICJ did not specify which part of article 3 israel violated. (Obviously pretty bad either way)
I'm trying to assert that neither Netanyahu or Gallant are currently facing charges of genocide. They have not been charged with this crime by the ICC or any other court.
Genocide is a major crime. Whether or not someone is facing charges for it is a big deal. The facts matter.
Can't you place that exact same argument on the side of the Palestinians, and add more weight to their claim - where the international community so far has allowed this, due to reason (whether money involved in politicians toeing a line or not), and so the courts decisions and political bias are more likely to favour Netanyahu over the Palestinians?
There never seems to be much critical thinking on the quick one-liners that on the surface appear to often be one-liner propaganda talking points used for deflection, to give an easy memorable line for an otherwise ideological mob to learn-train them with to then parrot.
You can claim anything, but i don't think it means much if you don't back it up with some arguments.
Like this is basically only the second time that a sitting head of state of a functioning country has had a warrant issued against them. Its fairly unprecedented. I don't agree with the claims the icc is biased against israel, but the fact they are acting at all certainly shows they aren't biased for them.
The proof you provide is very shallow, and with no real relevance or weight as an argument point - when it's known that the US and Israel have veto powers, as an example, that most international organizations currently are theatre without teeth - and so that's essentially why it's "fairly unprecedented."
Now Netanyahu has done enough blatantly, what's argued by some to be the most video/photographed-recorded genocide in history, the hierarchy and people resource hierarchy of the ICC hasn't fallen to Israeli political pressure (or whatever other tactics Mossad is known to use to try to get their way).
Once again, your final point is more neutral - where you could only really honestly say that if in a vacuum, if you're not looking behind the scenes with how much pressure Israel has put publicly and privately on members of the ICC to not file nor then issue charges, etc.
> when it's known that the US and Israel have veto powers, as an example,
They don't have veto powers of the ICC. Neither are even members.
However if your point is that both are powerful political actors, i think that speaks to a lack of pro-israel bias since they are going ahead with the charges despite the objections (and down right threats) from both countries which are super powerful actors.
> Now Netanyahu has done enough blatantly, what's argued by some to be the most video/photographed-recorded genocide in history,
It should be noted that genocide is not one of the charges. The ICC has juridsiction over genocide, but the ICC prosecuter has not accused israel of genocide thus far.
