Not really, because my question showed the false dichotomy in how you're trying to frame it. When all other countries we'd consider the closest things to paragons of democracy we have signed it, it paints a pretty clear picture. That picture remains clear even when despotic regimes are about 50/50 on it.
Pointing in the direction of a hypothetical doesn't really change that.
> Charges against African despots? Well Europe is on board for that!
And Europeans as seen from the trials of the war crimes that occurred following the breakup of Yugoslavia.
> Charges for war crimes during the Afghan war? Whoa there! We never agreed to that!
That was a nice dodge of my counter-argument. By your own theory, since most “beacons of democracy” are a part of the UN, clearly they adhere to all decisions by that body?
Of course they don’t.
My point stands - if the ICC starts charging powerful members states citizens you’ll pretty quickly watch support crumble. That’s why the African countries are pulling out - it’s pretty clear how the court will be used and it won’t be pointed towards its most powerful members.
Rather than join that circus, the US would rather bow out.
> My point stands - if the ICC starts charging powerful members states citizens you’ll pretty quickly watch support crumble.
Not really, I just don’t think you understand of the Rome Statue and ICC jurisdiction works.
An aggressor State is subject to the ICC whether or not they are a signatory to the Rome Statute so long as the violations occur within a signatory State that has accepted jurisdiction of the ICC.
Russia was able to withdraw from the Rome Statue, but that’s only meaningful because they are a permanent member of the UN Security Council with veto power, that only applies to 5 countries, and none of them are African. Meaning African countries can be subject to ICC whether or not they are a signatory provided they are the aggressor and the crimes are committed within a country that is a signatory.
The US isn’t bowing out of something it thinks is a circus, the US was part of the negotiation process to create the ICC, the US is a major advocate of the ICC and other International Tribunals, the US just doesn’t want to be subject to their jurisdiction.
- OP was dishonest by listing only a few countries that haven't signed on
- OP argument was "everyone else is doing it", which is not very convincing
- My argument is the ICC is no different than the UN or other international bodies, their authority comes from the most powerful members, so you can guarantee the most powerful members won't play nice when they're in the crosshairs (as evidenced by the current countries' citizens being prosecuted are all minor powers)
> - OP was dishonest by listing only a few countries that haven't signed on
I don’t think you know the definition of dishonest. One final time I list a number of countries that aren’t signatories to the Rome Statute, I never stated or implied that was an exhaustive list.
>OP argument was "everyone else is doing it", which is not very convincing
That is dishonest because that was not my argument and obviously inconsistent with the fact that I gave a list of countries that “were not doing it”.
Lastly your argument fails in light of every other international body the US is a part of, every treaty the US is a part of, and every international law the US is subject to…the irony is that is my argument. Moreover, your argument is “the ICC is no different than the UN or other international bodies” and the US isn’t part of the ICC. because “powerful countries won’t play nice”. If you don’t see where your logic breaks down, try to answer why the US is a member to all the other international bodies you claim are “no different” than the ICC, and the US is part of those other bodies but not the ICC.
For someone who claims to have gone to law school, you either don't state arguments well or you're very good at moving the goal posts.
One final time I list a number of countries that aren’t signatories to the Rome Statute, I never stated or implied that was an exhaustive list.
Let's see exactly what you said "Not exactly a list of countries championing human rights or state Sovereignty, the US included." Your argument (that the US is aligning with states that don't champion human rights) falls apart if other countries exist beyond that list that don't fit that singular conclusion. In fact, many countries that don't respect human right did ratify, so that completely blows up your argument. But you knew that, so that's why you only listed the countries you did.
That is dishonest because that was not my argument and obviously inconsistent with the fact that I gave a list of countries that “were not doing it”.
You said "When all other countries we'd consider the closest things to paragons of democracy we have signed it, it paints a pretty clear picture." How else does one interpret that other than "the US should do it because the other good countries are doing it"? It's a terrible argument - my parents would say "if your friends jumped off a bridge would you?".
If you don’t see where your logic breaks down, try to answer why the US is a member to all the other international bodies you claim are “no different” than the ICC, and the US is part of those other bodies but not the ICC.
It's because the US (like the major EU powers) make a choice - get a seat at the table or don't. Joining provides no guarantees that they'll adhere to the rules of membership. If the UN were to pass a resolution saying "Russia rightfully owns Poland and the land within the prior borders of East Germany". You think Germany will go "gee golly, we're a member of the UN so we better just hand it over". No, they'd weasel their way out of their obligations and defend their sovereignty. Just like the US and every other nation would.
> You said "When all other countries we'd consider the closest things to paragons of democracy we have signed it, it paints a pretty clear picture."
That’s at least the second time you direct quote me on something I didn’t say. That’s the definition of dishonest or you don’t know how quotes work.
If you had better reading comprehension you would clearly see my post isn’t about what the US should do or shouldn’t do, much less about “they should jump off the bridge because everyone else is jumping off a bridge.” My post was about “why” the US isn’t a a signatory to the Rome Statue. The list of other countries not signatories to the Rome Statute, for the most part, have a history of foreign aggression and human rights abuses, the US included, so of course they don’t want to subject themselves to the ICC because it is against their interests to submit themselves to a tribunal that has jurisdiction over their actual and/or anticipated crimes.
> It's because the US (like the major EU powers) make a choice - get a seat at the table or don't. Joining provides no guarantees that they'll adhere to the rules of membership. If the UN were to pass a resolution saying "Russia rightfully owns Poland and the land within the prior borders of East Germany". You think Germany will go "gee golly, we're a member of the UN so we better just hand it over". No, they'd weasel their way out of their obligations and defend their sovereignty. Just like the US and every other nation would.
And yet the US is a member of the UN and not the ICC. Your response does nothing to explain the question I asked you to defend your position, why the US would be part of the UN and not the ICC.
Pointing in the direction of a hypothetical doesn't really change that.
> Charges against African despots? Well Europe is on board for that!
And Europeans as seen from the trials of the war crimes that occurred following the breakup of Yugoslavia.
> Charges for war crimes during the Afghan war? Whoa there! We never agreed to that!
And yet the ICC has been investigating war crimes during the Afghan war, until the US started sanctioning ICC employees. They have since restarted the investigations. https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/prosecutor-se...