There is currently not a SINGLE American citizen under indictment, investigation, or facing an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court (ICC). The one case tied to US soldiers in Afghanistan was ended.
So why is the US doing this with such intensity right now?
Now? Who knows. But it's never been signed or approved in the USA, The Democrats will Say because Trump doesn't want it. The Antisemitic crowd will say because the Jews control the United States. Republicans said Clinton feared it, Obama said Republicans feared it, Biden ignored it.
Look at it more simplistically - A European court has decided that it has jurisdiction over the United States, China, India, Indonesia, most of the middle east - despite none of those countries agreeing. Plus, the us constitution establishes the highest court in the United States. That can be waived with a treaty, but again, no treaty was passed by congress and the US Presidency
It’s a preemptive attack to prevent accountability for Trump and Hegseth under the next presidency. All of those extrajudicial boat attacks that have been justified by claiming they were smuggling drugs (cocaine imports to the US haven’t dropped at all, BTW) are likely unjustified murders.
This administration attacks any body or authority that has the power to hold them accountable. See: attacks on the judiciary, attacks on the media, attacks on academia, etc.
I dont thimk they are that rational and planning ahead. It is reflection of their values and feelings.
It is ideological. Both of them and their close rich supporters feel ICC goals are abomination on itself, they put limits on power and they are therefore "bad" and "tyranny".
Hegseth dont plan. As evidenced by Iran war daily. Trump dont plan legal issues. They dont exist in his head at all.
I think Trump just wants to be able to play golf at his courses in Scotland without being arrested for his decisions to arbitrarily make war however he wants. I honestly think it's that simple. He is a simple man.
I mean, obviously it’s because of the Netanyahu thing plus Trump is probably gonna be on there once he is done plus and I think this is a big one, Putin doesn’t want it around.
> Those sanctions were issued in retaliation for ICC investigations into US personnel in Afghanistan and for warrants the court issued against top Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, for alleged war crimes in Gaza.
Oh no! An international body is taking action against some of the worst criminals on the planet? I'm glad the U.S. is taking actions to prevent those people from doing their job. America is doing great!
The US withdrew its signature all the way back in 2002, the same year the ICC came into being.
It's only "their job" where they have jurisdiction.
This is like Ofcom trying to require overseas companies/providers to enforce the Online Safety Act.
The ICC doesn't even automatically have jurisdiction of signatory nations either -- it's only when that nation fails to actively pursue prosecutions in their own courts.
ICC and ICJ have different roles. The ICJ's subjects are countries whereas the ICC deals with individuals.
In this case, the ICC has jurisdiction because the alleged crimes were committed in the territory of a signatory (Palestine) and because Palestine indeed found itself unable to prosecute them.
They aren't? The US government has authority over its borders and assets within them. This is an action that is perfectly legal and enabled by acts of Congress.
It actually has real teeth.
I don't necessarily agree with it either but what do you expect to happen in response to the ICC's action.
The ICC is trying to set a precedent that the US views as against its interests.
The question isn't whether the US government has power to sanction people, it's whether the Executive has the authority to use that power for this purpose against these entities.
"The bear" (rah rah, bro) is governed by laws. These sanctions are allegedly authorized under e.g. IEEPA and the National Emergencies Act. What's the emergency? Assume that's valid, then what powers are made available to the President in response to that emergency?
It's absolutely not clear at all that this action is "perfectly legal and enabled by acts of Congress."
This admin's last broad interpretation of IEEPA-originating powers was already struck down by SCOTUS.
This admin's last broad interpretation involved doing things that had never before been done under IEEPA. Prohibiting Americans from doing business with designated people based on executive fiat has been an extremely common use of IEEPA for decades, and multiple such long-standing emergencies have nothing to do with a concrete threat to the United States. The status quo is very dumb, don't get me wrong, but I don't think there's a lack of clarity about what it is.
It's really not that clear. For example there are specific procedural requirements, enforcement cannot be capricious or arbitrary, they can't be vague, etc etc
The Secretary of State imposed well-understood restrictions on two well-identified people, so there's no vagueness.
The underlying executive order authorizing these sanctions was based on specific concerns about the actions of the ICC, including specific arrest warrants against government officials of a country the president believes is a close American ally. So it's not arbitrary and capricious.
Again, I emphasize that whether US law authorizes doing this does not at all answer the question of whether it's a good idea. In a healthy country, Trump would be impeached on the spot for trying to pick this fight, because even people who don't like the ICC would fear discrediting their ideology. But there's no question under US law that these sanctions are valid.
Since the US for now controls the non BRICS financial system, any individual we Sanction loses all access to any money they have stored with entities that use computers.
> The US withdrew its signature all the way back in 2002.
Yeah, I guess international law was rather incompatible with their ambitions at the time. Fair play to them though, they certainly made the most of it.
"international law" should be incompatible with the interests of all people support freedom, human rights, and democracy. That's because that's what the world isn't and what international bodies represent, the current state of the world.
The thought process went something like if we give the world more of a say that would help push us towards a world with more human rights and freedoms (and fairness and equity). But the actual result has been less human rights and freedoms. This experiment has been a failure and the world is a worst place. Maybe correlation isn't causation but at this point in time free democracies should not be giving up their sovereignty to world organizations.
Well many of the countries where the war crimes happened are signatories to the ICC, so that isn't gonna be the problem you think it is.
Also: the US acting as a rouge state is not a power move it is a sign of moral decay, corruption and a critical failure to uphold the principles laid out in its own (wonderfully written!) Declaration of Independence.
It is just sad to see how hollowed out these great ideals have become.
Prefacing that I disagree heavily with the US actions under this admin and a lot with previous admins.
These ideals were always hollow. There is no law between sovereign entities, only martial might and political game theory tactics. It’s why the EU struggles so heavily with tighter integration. None of those sovereign states who are members want to give up the ability to do what they want and be subordinate to another power.
This mentality is exactly why the US is doing this. You've already condemned people without access to any good evidence. Besides, US defense requires the ability to do everything Israel did against Gaza.
> You've already condemned people without access to any good evidence.
And the live-streamed genocide that the world has watched over the past 3 years doesn't qualify as evidence? That's odd because I could have sworn the United Nations, The International Association of Genocide Scholars, B'Tselem, Physicians for Human Rights Israel, and Human Rights Watch had all labeled Israel's actions against Palestinians as genocide.
America's evidence against that? Israel says so.
> US defense requires the ability to do everything Israel did against Gaza
Since when does defence require killing innocent women and children indiscriminately? At what point does that sort of defence reach a level of inhumanity that you're willing to concede that it's genocidal?
As a Jewish man following true Jewish morals, I will stand by the statements of these international bodies that find Israel and its leaders guilty of committing genocide. Never again cannot mean only for jews; it can only be morally just when applied to everyone.
This is exactly what I mean: you take what the news reports as evidence, when the news is hearsay. Courts don't run off of hearsay. I know quite a bit of what actually happened, and it doesn't match what you're saying. You've bypassed epistemology and gone to condemnation.
What are you trying to say? Are you implying there is no good evidence that Netenyahu is committing war crimes in Gaza? Whether or not their actions are justified, war crimes are not.
The relationship between the ICC and the "great powers" is an interesting one. It sort of separates the normal alliances of "west" and "non-west" alliances, and reshapes them into powerful and non-powerful. And it seems this conflict is ongoing.
Apart from Europe, the number large, powerful non-signatory countries is pretty significant: US, China, India, Russia, Iran, Saudi, Egypt, Turkey, Indonesia, and more.
I've always thought it is interesting that the concept of international law is by definition in conflict with the de facto anarchy of international relations. I've always had mixed opinions on the topic, simply because you can look at an institution like the UN, and see that it functions much more successfully as a simple forum than a deliberative body. The idea that somehow we are going to implement something as difficult as a criminal court on an international basis seems... very idealistic. A court like this always seems sensible at first glance, but I'm not sure it can really exist effectively at all over any serious time horizon.
The concept of international law outside of its jurisdiction is just a rebranded form of imperialism. How’s it different to a US Federal court deciding it has jurisdiction in Canada?
Especially as ultimately the only way to actually enforce any law is with violence (without which a court is impotent and its laws meaningless).
>interesting that the concept of international law is by definition in conflict of the anarchy of real Realpolitik
not 'by definition'. There's a fairly good case to be made that playing by, and being able to set, international norms is in the long term interest of powerful countries. For one because you don't know when you'll cease to be powerful, which will happen given enough time and secondly because even smaller players can cause significant damage when acting without constraint, a lesson several great powers are currently learning for the umpteenth time.
It's very meathead schoolyard bully coded to think that anarchy benefits you just because you happen to be the biggest dude around. It speaks more to the intellect of current leaders than it does to some fundamental contradiction.
I've updated the language there a bit, but the meaning is the same.
>There's a fairly good case to be made that playing by, and being able to set, international norms is in the long term benefit of powerful countries.
Yes, but it doesn't matter. The entire concept of truly sovereign states existing is the point. The second a state wants to leave the agreement, they just stop cooperating. There is no "greater sovereign" with which you can enforce these rules, and if there is -- say, a bigger country invading a smaller country to enforce the rules -- you're once again in a state of war, and none of the rules mattered in the first place.
You can always hide in your own country, as long as you or the people who protect you are able to stay in power, but at least you cannot use the rest of the world as playground or shopping center. Sucks to be a rich kleptocrat and not be able to have a yacht in Nice or be able to take your wife shopping in London.
> playing by [...] international norms is in the long term interest of powerful countries.
Ah, but are the interests of their leaders aligned with the interests of the countries?
(Side note: it's so charmingly cute we now [pretend to?] care about AI alignment, when the much simpler problem of politician alignment remains unsolved.)
> There's a fairly good case to be made that playing by, and being able to set, international norms is in the long term interest of powerful countries.
There's also a fairly good case to be made that not playing by international norms is in the long term interest of powerful (and not powerful) countries.
For example, China didn't get to be the likely second superpower by respecting intellectual property rights, South China Sea territorial claims, human rights, intellectual pluralism, environmental protections, or any of the other things that the post-Cold War international order considered important, especially prior to 9/11.
The only thing that ultimately matters is if you make the right people the right amount of money at the right time. China does this through cheap labor and by setting up supply chains that the rest of the world either can't or won't, particularly with regard to workers' rights and environmental concerns.
high wages, intellectual pluralism or trade disputes aren't part of the bedrock of international norms.
China actually did spend a huge amount of energy to join the international institutions like the WTO. Whether they maximize their leeway within them is another story but they've consistently pushed for an international approach and expanded their influence within international institutions, not outside of them. That's why they're so well networked now.
And that's also btw the reason the US is throwing a big old fit in the first place, they feel like they've lost their influence largely to China and other emerging economies. Even though China may not meet your standards for what a liberal society looks like, China has not gone rogue, quite the opposite.
Well the rest of the world will dismantle the US hegemony "brick by brick". Not because they want to but because they have to. It may take decades but trust has been lost. The US can't be trusted at any level and investments will adjust to this level like any other unstable state.
Research, investments and talents are all avoiding the US. AI won't save the US economy either as there is no moat as we can all see.
I was going to say you're probably not going to like the Chinese take on the surveillance state. Then I remembered Flock exists. Can't have shit in this era :(
If faced with two genocidal villains who see a nearby sovereign territory as theirs really even if the locals need to be reminded of this with guns, I'd rather have the competent one who sees the interest of the people collectively as important.
I don't have to think either isn't "abusing its power to force deals".
> the one abusing its power to force deals since the 80s us obviously the worst.
Agreed. China's behavior towards its own people, its neighbors - Tibet, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and India - and the international community as a whole since Dengism took hold have been inexcusable, no matter how much cheap manufacturing they're able to pull off.
They've blatantly enabled the totalitarian DPRK in its quest to defy UN sanctions over its nuclear program, and have violated the sovereignty of their neighbors in the South China Sea. Now they're undercutting manufacturing around the world by producing goods without the consideration of environmental concerns that places like the EU and US try to take into account with their own industrial development. PLA hackers have attacked numerous international targets. PRC agents have worked to abduct Chinese citizens exercising their basic human rights to free thought abroad through a system of secret police stations.
All of this since they ran over protestors with main battle tanks in 1989.
What's truly frightening is that the powerful in the rest of the world seem to want to emulate this sort of behavior, particularly totalitarian control of their own populations.
The current US administration really doesn't like accountability, and if the judges can't be bought they get mad at them. One day we will be back to normal. I hope I'll be around to see it, the degree to which we are sliding is more than a little bit worrisome.
"US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has announced sanctions against the president and a senior lawyer of the International Criminal Court (ICC).
The move is the Trump administration's latest escalation in its campaign to "dismantle" the court which is empowered by more than 120 member countries to investigate war crimes."
The Trump administration is saying the quiet part out loud: they are pro war crimes.
> Rubio accused the court of being "a corrupt and fatally politicized supranational court that has maliciously abused its authority and exceeded its mandate.
Interesting times indeed. The foreign affairs secretary of the most corrupt US administration cries foul of the ICC.
> Despite its significant global representation, dozens of governments are not parties to the ICC, including China, India, Israel, Russia, and the United States
What a great club to be in, ripe with war crimes and human rights abuses.
No one is gonna come out and say "we're fascists who commit war crimes" but they spend a lot of time, money and effort fighting against antifascists and people who try to prevent war crimes. The purpose of a thing is what it does.
Everybody in the Trump administration has come out and said that. We’re just so jaded that it doesn’t even register.
Hegseth tells his “warfighters” that they must ignore the Geneva convention. The president goes on social media and threatens the destruction of civilian populations (“an entire civilization will die tonight”) as well as civilian infrastructure (bridges, power plants).
Hegseth himself literally committed a war crime already. Simply declaring no quarter is itself a war crime. On the other hand, it makes both the current SecDef and any 14 year old COD player feel REALLY badass.
Giving your own personnel or enemy personnel the impression you are pursuing a policy of no quarter is itself a war crime.
As a European I would want my goverent to summon the US embassador and declare them a persona non grata over this. Then as a next step to work on sanction the US on an EU level like the rouge state it is.
Who wouldn’t want to do this. Unfortunately the EU is dependent on US economy and defence. The EU doesn’t dare. For the same reasons they also swallow shaking hands with rogue states like China and Saudi Arabia.
There is currently not a SINGLE American citizen under indictment, investigation, or facing an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court (ICC). The one case tied to US soldiers in Afghanistan was ended.
So why is the US doing this with such intensity right now?
( My question was rhetorical, you can see in the initial ICC sanctions from the Whitehouse it was all about Israel + Netanyahu: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/impo... )
I know your question is rhetorical, but for the avoidance of doubt: https://www.icc-cpi.int/defendant/netanyahu
Now? Who knows. But it's never been signed or approved in the USA, The Democrats will Say because Trump doesn't want it. The Antisemitic crowd will say because the Jews control the United States. Republicans said Clinton feared it, Obama said Republicans feared it, Biden ignored it.
Look at it more simplistically - A European court has decided that it has jurisdiction over the United States, China, India, Indonesia, most of the middle east - despite none of those countries agreeing. Plus, the us constitution establishes the highest court in the United States. That can be waived with a treaty, but again, no treaty was passed by congress and the US Presidency
It’s a preemptive attack to prevent accountability for Trump and Hegseth under the next presidency. All of those extrajudicial boat attacks that have been justified by claiming they were smuggling drugs (cocaine imports to the US haven’t dropped at all, BTW) are likely unjustified murders.
This administration attacks any body or authority that has the power to hold them accountable. See: attacks on the judiciary, attacks on the media, attacks on academia, etc.
This. It’s to protect themselves against any potential future investigations.
I dont thimk they are that rational and planning ahead. It is reflection of their values and feelings.
It is ideological. Both of them and their close rich supporters feel ICC goals are abomination on itself, they put limits on power and they are therefore "bad" and "tyranny".
Hegseth dont plan. As evidenced by Iran war daily. Trump dont plan legal issues. They dont exist in his head at all.
I think Trump just wants to be able to play golf at his courses in Scotland without being arrested for his decisions to arbitrarily make war however he wants. I honestly think it's that simple. He is a simple man.
Then maybe he should write off his Greenland ambitions.
Because Russia likes a de-stabilized world and the current admin is almost a Russian puppet?
This is because of the US's unwavering support of Israel no matter what they do.
You can not blame all of the worlds ills on Russia, seemingly the most powerful and least capable nation at the same time.
> ... Russia, seemingly the most powerful and least capable nation at the same time.
Trump and his cult are working very hard to wrest this title from Russia as quickly as possible.
I mean, obviously it’s because of the Netanyahu thing plus Trump is probably gonna be on there once he is done plus and I think this is a big one, Putin doesn’t want it around.
Senior officials in the Trump regime know that we may decide to handcuff them and send them to the ICC after democracy is restored.
> Those sanctions were issued in retaliation for ICC investigations into US personnel in Afghanistan and for warrants the court issued against top Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, for alleged war crimes in Gaza.
Oh no! An international body is taking action against some of the worst criminals on the planet? I'm glad the U.S. is taking actions to prevent those people from doing their job. America is doing great!
https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1d097g2/which_coun...
The US withdrew its signature all the way back in 2002, the same year the ICC came into being.
It's only "their job" where they have jurisdiction.
This is like Ofcom trying to require overseas companies/providers to enforce the Online Safety Act.
The ICC doesn't even automatically have jurisdiction of signatory nations either -- it's only when that nation fails to actively pursue prosecutions in their own courts.
ICC and ICJ have different roles. The ICJ's subjects are countries whereas the ICC deals with individuals.
In this case, the ICC has jurisdiction because the alleged crimes were committed in the territory of a signatory (Palestine) and because Palestine indeed found itself unable to prosecute them.
ICC has jurisdiction in the signatory countries themselves.
Since when US requires "jurisdiction" for it's actions?
Nice whataboutism.
All UN member states are de facto part of the ICJ. If you have a valid claim against a nation, the proper place to pursue that is the ICJ.
Hate what the US and Israel are doing or not, what the ICC is doing here is entirely political posturing and theater.
Think the ICC is engaged in political posturing and theater all you want, sanctions are not an appropriate tool
They aren't? The US government has authority over its borders and assets within them. This is an action that is perfectly legal and enabled by acts of Congress. It actually has real teeth.
I don't necessarily agree with it either but what do you expect to happen in response to the ICC's action.
The ICC is trying to set a precedent that the US views as against its interests.
Go ahead and poke the bear.
The question isn't whether the US government has power to sanction people, it's whether the Executive has the authority to use that power for this purpose against these entities.
"The bear" (rah rah, bro) is governed by laws. These sanctions are allegedly authorized under e.g. IEEPA and the National Emergencies Act. What's the emergency? Assume that's valid, then what powers are made available to the President in response to that emergency?
It's absolutely not clear at all that this action is "perfectly legal and enabled by acts of Congress."
This admin's last broad interpretation of IEEPA-originating powers was already struck down by SCOTUS.
This admin's last broad interpretation involved doing things that had never before been done under IEEPA. Prohibiting Americans from doing business with designated people based on executive fiat has been an extremely common use of IEEPA for decades, and multiple such long-standing emergencies have nothing to do with a concrete threat to the United States. The status quo is very dumb, don't get me wrong, but I don't think there's a lack of clarity about what it is.
It's really not that clear. For example there are specific procedural requirements, enforcement cannot be capricious or arbitrary, they can't be vague, etc etc
The Secretary of State imposed well-understood restrictions on two well-identified people, so there's no vagueness.
The underlying executive order authorizing these sanctions was based on specific concerns about the actions of the ICC, including specific arrest warrants against government officials of a country the president believes is a close American ally. So it's not arbitrary and capricious.
Again, I emphasize that whether US law authorizes doing this does not at all answer the question of whether it's a good idea. In a healthy country, Trump would be impeached on the spot for trying to pick this fight, because even people who don't like the ICC would fear discrediting their ideology. But there's no question under US law that these sanctions are valid.
Since the US for now controls the non BRICS financial system, any individual we Sanction loses all access to any money they have stored with entities that use computers.
> The US withdrew its signature all the way back in 2002.
Yeah, I guess international law was rather incompatible with their ambitions at the time. Fair play to them though, they certainly made the most of it.
"international law" should be incompatible with the interests of all people support freedom, human rights, and democracy. That's because that's what the world isn't and what international bodies represent, the current state of the world.
The thought process went something like if we give the world more of a say that would help push us towards a world with more human rights and freedoms (and fairness and equity). But the actual result has been less human rights and freedoms. This experiment has been a failure and the world is a worst place. Maybe correlation isn't causation but at this point in time free democracies should not be giving up their sovereignty to world organizations.
Over the last two decades: https://ourworldindata.org/democracy
I'm really sorry but I've read this comment 3 times now and I still can't make sense of it
Well many of the countries where the war crimes happened are signatories to the ICC, so that isn't gonna be the problem you think it is.
Also: the US acting as a rouge state is not a power move it is a sign of moral decay, corruption and a critical failure to uphold the principles laid out in its own (wonderfully written!) Declaration of Independence.
It is just sad to see how hollowed out these great ideals have become.
Prefacing that I disagree heavily with the US actions under this admin and a lot with previous admins.
These ideals were always hollow. There is no law between sovereign entities, only martial might and political game theory tactics. It’s why the EU struggles so heavily with tighter integration. None of those sovereign states who are members want to give up the ability to do what they want and be subordinate to another power.
This mentality is exactly why the US is doing this. You've already condemned people without access to any good evidence. Besides, US defense requires the ability to do everything Israel did against Gaza.
> You've already condemned people without access to any good evidence.
And the live-streamed genocide that the world has watched over the past 3 years doesn't qualify as evidence? That's odd because I could have sworn the United Nations, The International Association of Genocide Scholars, B'Tselem, Physicians for Human Rights Israel, and Human Rights Watch had all labeled Israel's actions against Palestinians as genocide.
America's evidence against that? Israel says so.
> US defense requires the ability to do everything Israel did against Gaza
Since when does defence require killing innocent women and children indiscriminately? At what point does that sort of defence reach a level of inhumanity that you're willing to concede that it's genocidal?
As a Jewish man following true Jewish morals, I will stand by the statements of these international bodies that find Israel and its leaders guilty of committing genocide. Never again cannot mean only for jews; it can only be morally just when applied to everyone.
This is exactly what I mean: you take what the news reports as evidence, when the news is hearsay. Courts don't run off of hearsay. I know quite a bit of what actually happened, and it doesn't match what you're saying. You've bypassed epistemology and gone to condemnation.
What are you trying to say? Are you implying there is no good evidence that Netenyahu is committing war crimes in Gaza? Whether or not their actions are justified, war crimes are not.
The relationship between the ICC and the "great powers" is an interesting one. It sort of separates the normal alliances of "west" and "non-west" alliances, and reshapes them into powerful and non-powerful. And it seems this conflict is ongoing.
Apart from Europe, the number large, powerful non-signatory countries is pretty significant: US, China, India, Russia, Iran, Saudi, Egypt, Turkey, Indonesia, and more.
I've always thought it is interesting that the concept of international law is by definition in conflict with the de facto anarchy of international relations. I've always had mixed opinions on the topic, simply because you can look at an institution like the UN, and see that it functions much more successfully as a simple forum than a deliberative body. The idea that somehow we are going to implement something as difficult as a criminal court on an international basis seems... very idealistic. A court like this always seems sensible at first glance, but I'm not sure it can really exist effectively at all over any serious time horizon.
The concept of international law outside of its jurisdiction is just a rebranded form of imperialism. How’s it different to a US Federal court deciding it has jurisdiction in Canada?
Especially as ultimately the only way to actually enforce any law is with violence (without which a court is impotent and its laws meaningless).
>interesting that the concept of international law is by definition in conflict of the anarchy of real Realpolitik
not 'by definition'. There's a fairly good case to be made that playing by, and being able to set, international norms is in the long term interest of powerful countries. For one because you don't know when you'll cease to be powerful, which will happen given enough time and secondly because even smaller players can cause significant damage when acting without constraint, a lesson several great powers are currently learning for the umpteenth time.
It's very meathead schoolyard bully coded to think that anarchy benefits you just because you happen to be the biggest dude around. It speaks more to the intellect of current leaders than it does to some fundamental contradiction.
I've updated the language there a bit, but the meaning is the same.
>There's a fairly good case to be made that playing by, and being able to set, international norms is in the long term benefit of powerful countries.
Yes, but it doesn't matter. The entire concept of truly sovereign states existing is the point. The second a state wants to leave the agreement, they just stop cooperating. There is no "greater sovereign" with which you can enforce these rules, and if there is -- say, a bigger country invading a smaller country to enforce the rules -- you're once again in a state of war, and none of the rules mattered in the first place.
You can always hide in your own country, as long as you or the people who protect you are able to stay in power, but at least you cannot use the rest of the world as playground or shopping center. Sucks to be a rich kleptocrat and not be able to have a yacht in Nice or be able to take your wife shopping in London.
> playing by [...] international norms is in the long term interest of powerful countries.
Ah, but are the interests of their leaders aligned with the interests of the countries?
(Side note: it's so charmingly cute we now [pretend to?] care about AI alignment, when the much simpler problem of politician alignment remains unsolved.)
> There's a fairly good case to be made that playing by, and being able to set, international norms is in the long term interest of powerful countries.
There's also a fairly good case to be made that not playing by international norms is in the long term interest of powerful (and not powerful) countries.
For example, China didn't get to be the likely second superpower by respecting intellectual property rights, South China Sea territorial claims, human rights, intellectual pluralism, environmental protections, or any of the other things that the post-Cold War international order considered important, especially prior to 9/11.
The only thing that ultimately matters is if you make the right people the right amount of money at the right time. China does this through cheap labor and by setting up supply chains that the rest of the world either can't or won't, particularly with regard to workers' rights and environmental concerns.
high wages, intellectual pluralism or trade disputes aren't part of the bedrock of international norms.
China actually did spend a huge amount of energy to join the international institutions like the WTO. Whether they maximize their leeway within them is another story but they've consistently pushed for an international approach and expanded their influence within international institutions, not outside of them. That's why they're so well networked now.
And that's also btw the reason the US is throwing a big old fit in the first place, they feel like they've lost their influence largely to China and other emerging economies. Even though China may not meet your standards for what a liberal society looks like, China has not gone rogue, quite the opposite.
Well the rest of the world will dismantle the US hegemony "brick by brick". Not because they want to but because they have to. It may take decades but trust has been lost. The US can't be trusted at any level and investments will adjust to this level like any other unstable state.
Research, investments and talents are all avoiding the US. AI won't save the US economy either as there is no moat as we can all see.
D.C is controlled by enemies to humanity and freedom. They openly plan on enslaving the rest of the world to secure their hegemony.
There will be another one. I hope you like the CCP's vision of the future.
I'd rather have no overlord, but between China and the US, the one abusing its power to force deals since the 80s us obviously the worst.
I was going to say you're probably not going to like the Chinese take on the surveillance state. Then I remembered Flock exists. Can't have shit in this era :(
If faced with two genocidal villains who see a nearby sovereign territory as theirs really even if the locals need to be reminded of this with guns, I'd rather have the competent one who sees the interest of the people collectively as important.
I don't have to think either isn't "abusing its power to force deals".
> I'd rather have no overlord
Unfortunately, that's not how humans work.
> the one abusing its power to force deals since the 80s us obviously the worst.
Agreed. China's behavior towards its own people, its neighbors - Tibet, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and India - and the international community as a whole since Dengism took hold have been inexcusable, no matter how much cheap manufacturing they're able to pull off.
They've blatantly enabled the totalitarian DPRK in its quest to defy UN sanctions over its nuclear program, and have violated the sovereignty of their neighbors in the South China Sea. Now they're undercutting manufacturing around the world by producing goods without the consideration of environmental concerns that places like the EU and US try to take into account with their own industrial development. PLA hackers have attacked numerous international targets. PRC agents have worked to abduct Chinese citizens exercising their basic human rights to free thought abroad through a system of secret police stations.
All of this since they ran over protestors with main battle tanks in 1989.
What's truly frightening is that the powerful in the rest of the world seem to want to emulate this sort of behavior, particularly totalitarian control of their own populations.
My government is just dumb as a box of rocks.
It's like they heard of the ICC from a facebook meme and develop policy around that.
The current US administration really doesn't like accountability, and if the judges can't be bought they get mad at them. One day we will be back to normal. I hope I'll be around to see it, the degree to which we are sliding is more than a little bit worrisome.
About a year ago CBCs "About That" show did a 10min segment on the history of the US objections/support regarding the ICC, decent watch if you want a quick recap of the last 24 years: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBW6DOss67w - Also, to a degree, the ICC is somewhat moot to the US directly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
https://archive.ph/kYj3F
"US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has announced sanctions against the president and a senior lawyer of the International Criminal Court (ICC).
The move is the Trump administration's latest escalation in its campaign to "dismantle" the court which is empowered by more than 120 member countries to investigate war crimes."
The Trump administration is saying the quiet part out loud: they are pro war crimes.
There was little doubt after the last 24 months. Even if it wasn't with words they did plenty of deeds that confirmed that.
> Rubio accused the court of being "a corrupt and fatally politicized supranational court that has maliciously abused its authority and exceeded its mandate.
Interesting times indeed. The foreign affairs secretary of the most corrupt US administration cries foul of the ICC.
> Despite its significant global representation, dozens of governments are not parties to the ICC, including China, India, Israel, Russia, and the United States
What a great club to be in, ripe with war crimes and human rights abuses.
The criminals are running the show.
Khan (ICC prosecutor) said Lindsey Graham (US senator) told him during a May 2024 call:
"This court is for Africa and thugs like Putin. It is not for democracies like Israel and the United States of America."
No one is gonna come out and say "we're fascists who commit war crimes" but they spend a lot of time, money and effort fighting against antifascists and people who try to prevent war crimes. The purpose of a thing is what it does.
Everybody in the Trump administration has come out and said that. We’re just so jaded that it doesn’t even register.
Hegseth tells his “warfighters” that they must ignore the Geneva convention. The president goes on social media and threatens the destruction of civilian populations (“an entire civilization will die tonight”) as well as civilian infrastructure (bridges, power plants).
Hegseth himself literally committed a war crime already. Simply declaring no quarter is itself a war crime. On the other hand, it makes both the current SecDef and any 14 year old COD player feel REALLY badass.
Giving your own personnel or enemy personnel the impression you are pursuing a policy of no quarter is itself a war crime.
Disgusting
As a European I would want my goverent to summon the US embassador and declare them a persona non grata over this. Then as a next step to work on sanction the US on an EU level like the rouge state it is.
Who wouldn’t want to do this. Unfortunately the EU is dependent on US economy and defence. The EU doesn’t dare. For the same reasons they also swallow shaking hands with rogue states like China and Saudi Arabia.
This is not really US doing it, as they would not care less, but Israel by proxy. ICC has never accused the US of anything.