It turns out that these arrest warrants issued by the ICC have 0 worth and can be ignored without consequences - see Putin’s visit to Mongolia. So what makes this one newsworthy?
It turns out that these arrest warrants issued by the ICC have 0 worth and can be ignored without consequences - see Putin’s visit to Mongolia.
That feels like oversimplifying it a bit. We know Putin is safe from arrest in Mongolia. Does that mean Putin is safe from arrest in the 123 other member nations? Does it mean Netanyahu is safe in...
That feels like oversimplifying it a bit. We know Putin is safe from arrest in Mongolia. Does that mean Putin is safe from arrest in the 123 other member nations? Does it mean Netanyahu is safe in Mongolia?
It is and isn’t. Perhaps it was a naive question on my part - since not only newsworthy stories get reported - but it was still a genuine question. The facts are like this, in my mind: ICC is an...
It is and isn’t. Perhaps it was a naive question on my part - since not only newsworthy stories get reported - but it was still a genuine question.
The facts are like this, in my mind:
ICC is an international organisation
their authority relies on its members agreeing to uphold some set of arbitrary rules
a member ignored the rules
there were no consequences for this, as far as I know
Ergo, ICC has no real authority. But on the off-chance this new arrest warrant is different somehow, I asked my question.
I'd say you're missing out a crucial aspect of why these international organizations exist: to work out, in hopefully a neutral space, different parties' grievances and to eventually work towards...
I'd say you're missing out a crucial aspect of why these international organizations exist: to work out, in hopefully a neutral space, different parties' grievances and to eventually work towards the truth or a policy objective in a way that's transparent and credible. When these international institutions are set up properly, they gain prestige and often have significant cache in domestic debates and policymaking. In the case of the ICC, there exist many countries with statutory frameworks for cooperating with the ICC, and you can see here already a sizable list of countries that say they will enforce the ruling.
Whatever. Just like Putin and Mongolia, nations refusing to arrest wanted international criminals are now on the record as refusing to do so and are complicit in the crime. This is largely...
Whatever. Just like Putin and Mongolia, nations refusing to arrest wanted international criminals are now on the record as refusing to do so and are complicit in the crime.
This is largely symbolic as Netanyahu and Gallant will simply not travel to any countries that are part of ICC or refusing to implement the warrant, but it's not absolutely nothing.
Not really, it depends on the countries who enforce that warrant. I don't think the US or the UK will respect that warrant (especially the US), but I'm sure other member nations will. Thing is,...
Not really, it depends on the countries who enforce that warrant. I don't think the US or the UK will respect that warrant (especially the US), but I'm sure other member nations will. Thing is, Netanyahu and Gallant probably aren't visiting those nations respecting the warrant.
Regardless it is still symbolic and meaningful despite it being an "on paper" measure
The US is not a signatory on this agreement and has no obligation (even on paper) to comply. AFAIK only Argentina has so far declared it will not comply, to the surprise of no one.
The US is not a signatory on this agreement and has no obligation (even on paper) to comply. AFAIK only Argentina has so far declared it will not comply, to the surprise of no one.
It turns out that these arrest warrants issued by the ICC have 0 worth and can be ignored without consequences - see Putin’s visit to Mongolia.
So what makes this one newsworthy?
That feels like oversimplifying it a bit. We know Putin is safe from arrest in Mongolia. Does that mean Putin is safe from arrest in the 123 other member nations? Does it mean Netanyahu is safe in Mongolia?
It is and isn’t. Perhaps it was a naive question on my part - since not only newsworthy stories get reported - but it was still a genuine question.
The facts are like this, in my mind:
Ergo, ICC has no real authority. But on the off-chance this new arrest warrant is different somehow, I asked my question.
I'd say you're missing out a crucial aspect of why these international organizations exist: to work out, in hopefully a neutral space, different parties' grievances and to eventually work towards the truth or a policy objective in a way that's transparent and credible. When these international institutions are set up properly, they gain prestige and often have significant cache in domestic debates and policymaking. In the case of the ICC, there exist many countries with statutory frameworks for cooperating with the ICC, and you can see here already a sizable list of countries that say they will enforce the ruling.
This is the first ever ICC warrant issued against a democratically elected leader of a “western” country. Pretty noteworthy, if you ask me.
Try giving this a watch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVsjEJo9R7Q
Yes it does.
Because the “you and what army” response actually works if you’re a nuclear armed nation.
Whatever. Just like Putin and Mongolia, nations refusing to arrest wanted international criminals are now on the record as refusing to do so and are complicit in the crime.
This is largely symbolic as Netanyahu and Gallant will simply not travel to any countries that are part of ICC or refusing to implement the warrant, but it's not absolutely nothing.
So this is something called symbolism – if you are condemned by an international hman rights court, this is serious.
Not really, it depends on the countries who enforce that warrant. I don't think the US or the UK will respect that warrant (especially the US), but I'm sure other member nations will. Thing is, Netanyahu and Gallant probably aren't visiting those nations respecting the warrant.
Regardless it is still symbolic and meaningful despite it being an "on paper" measure
The US is not a signatory on this agreement and has no obligation (even on paper) to comply. AFAIK only Argentina has so far declared it will not comply, to the surprise of no one.
Archive link https://archive.is/qtHym