“[Speaker Johnson] said that if the ICC is allowed to threaten Israel's leaders, then we know that America will be next. Our response is: Of course!" Pandor exclaimed.
I guess I need to explain this for the down voters.
For the same reason the security council includes the most powerful nations on Earth, as permanent security members, who can veto anything… At the global level military capability is the main factor. ICC is a fun rule of law experiment, and it’s a great way for the powerful to punish those falling out of favor, but the ICC cannot be used to punish the powerful.
Nobody is going to start a world war, to enforce ICC rule of law. That’s exactly why nuclear power’s have veto power on the security council.
There is no military attached to ICC decisions, only signatories, who will enforce it as its convenient.
This is a big reason countries don’t sign the ICC, they’re not willing to commit themselves to the jurisdiction of a third party. Unwilling to let someone else commit them to military action, which arresting a head of state would be a de facto cause belli for war.
Look at how much fun Canada had when they arrested a Huawei executive on behalf of the United States… They sure as shit won’t be doing that again any time soon.
Sanctions against America are enforced by the only country that can defeat America: itself. And if that doesn’t work, maybe like a unified Taliban and Viet Cong coalition? I’m not sure. We’ll cross that bridge when we get there.
You and what army?
I guess I need to explain this for the down voters.
For the same reason the security council includes the most powerful nations on Earth, as permanent security members, who can veto anything… At the global level military capability is the main factor. ICC is a fun rule of law experiment, and it’s a great way for the powerful to punish those falling out of favor, but the ICC cannot be used to punish the powerful.
Nobody is going to start a world war, to enforce ICC rule of law. That’s exactly why nuclear power’s have veto power on the security council.
There is no military attached to ICC decisions, only signatories, who will enforce it as its convenient.
This is a big reason countries don’t sign the ICC, they’re not willing to commit themselves to the jurisdiction of a third party. Unwilling to let someone else commit them to military action, which arresting a head of state would be a de facto cause belli for war.
Look at how much fun Canada had when they arrested a Huawei executive on behalf of the United States… They sure as shit won’t be doing that again any time soon.
Well she did declare jihad in the article. So presumably some will come.
Sanctions against America are enforced by the only country that can defeat America: itself. And if that doesn’t work, maybe like a unified Taliban and Viet Cong coalition? I’m not sure. We’ll cross that bridge when we get there.