Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

The U.S. rightfully doesn't support international courts. It's nonsensical to have international tribunals that render judgments on people outside the legislative jurisdiction of the sovereign body of which the court is a part.

People in Europe are learning right now how not awesome it is to get yourself into binding international frameworks with people who are connected by incomplete legislative and executive jurisdiction, and whom often have dramatically different national priorities and values.

In any case, it's arguably unconstitutional for the U.S. to support international courts. If Congress signed up for a treaty binding us to the decisions of say the IJC or ICC, would those decisions be reviewable by the Supreme Court? If so, then accepting jurisdiction would be redundant, since the Supreme Court is perfectly competent to adjudicate disputes under "international law." If not, that would arguably be a separation of powers violation: Congress signing us up to accept the superior jurisdiction of a foreign court whose judgments couldn't be reviewed by what is supposed to be the court of last resort: the Supreme Court.

Things change. The US constitution can (theoretically) too. It's worse to have a nation with no authority at all killing via drone. The alternative technique, kidnap, torture and detain doesn't work either as the US doesn't seem able to find a way to try these people. An overreaching body that can do something is needed, as the US way doesn't work. I'd sooner have an imperfectly drawn up consensus than a misguided Lone Ranger. And more importantly, who polices the police - the US has plenty of individuals who should be answerable for their crimes - which will never happen in the US. I'd suggest that a fear of being answerable is perhaps a greater motivation than any other where the US blocking of the ICC is concerned.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact