99 pointsby TechTechTechan hour ago25 comments
  • sdcfgy41 minutes ago
    As an outside observer, the US administration is an embarrassment to the country. You're never going to come back from this. Well done.
    • jimbokun26 minutes ago
      Oh, we are well aware.

      Pretty sure even a lot of the current President's voters are slowly coming to this same realization. I predict soon in casual conversation almost no one will have voted for this man.

      • mattcaldwell14 minutes ago
        I'm not sure about that! Don't see any evidence of that from where I'm sitting.
        • jimbokun8 minutes ago
          They will agree Trump is an idiot but quickly change the conversation to how Democrats are Even Worse.
        • ogogmad12 minutes ago
          You have UNDER HALF of Americans forcing MORE THAN HALF of Americans to pay steep tariffs to trade with their universally well-regarded neighbour across the US's northern border. Between the two groups, the more-than-half are the ones most impacted by the tariffs against Canada. Given how libertarian many Americans claim to be, a break-up of the US is now imminent. The world will end up better.
      • vkou7 minutes ago
        Nah, they are all getting ready to vote for him a fourth time.
    • nextaccountic2 minutes ago
      It's not just this administration. The US helped create this court and pushed other countries to join, but never joined themselves and always threatened the court if they indicted or judged American people.

      There's an US law that says the US will invade Belgium if the court wanted to investigate an American (???)

      I remember Hillary Clinton, in the Obama administration, saying the US is an exceptional country that deserves exceptional conditions regarding this issue

      It's frankly ridiculous

    • jolux15 minutes ago
      It’s a travesty but I think “never going to come back from this” is a stretch. There is no immediate replacement for the position the US holds in global politics. China has no interest in being the guarantor of freedom of transit in international waterways, to pick one example.
      • actionfromafar7 minutes ago
        Just because someone cannot replace the US does not mean things go back to where they were. We get the "multipolar world" AKA chaos.
    • Betelbuddy30 minutes ago
      The US is an embarrassment to the Planet.
      • vrganj27 minutes ago
        I wish it was just that. Existential threat is the term I'd use at this point.
    • tiahura13 minutes ago
      Parents spend considerable time teaching children to not get caught up in other people's opinions.
    • DFHippie26 minutes ago
      Most Americans agree with you at this point.
      • sdcfgy24 minutes ago
        Just on the record I sympathise with you. Wish it could have been different for the sake of the good people over there.

        (I am from the country that voted to leave the EU...)

        • shagie7 minutes ago
          Sometimes you need to touch the stove and get burned to learn that its hot. This is something that tends to be repeated once people forget about the last time they (as a collective nation) touched the stove.

          Sometimes it can be learned with a simple first degree burn. Sometimes you get blisters. Sometimes the government in power is determined to hold their hand to it and get third degree burns.

          Hopefully the pain from this round of burns can be remembered for a while longer before its repeated again.

    • rfgplk34 minutes ago
      The International Criminal Court is a farce. How can you tell other sovereign nation what is a "crime" or what "is not a crime"? It has literally zero authority to decide such matters.
      • chmod77526 minutes ago
        You appear to be confused. Anyone can decide anything, the question is whether it is in their power to enforce their decisions.

        Saying that they don't have authority to make a decision implies that there's some universal set of rules that internationally lays down what anyone's authority is - precisely the kind of thing you appear to be opposed to, because such a set of rules would likely need a court!

        • sobellian25 minutes ago
          > Anyone can decide anything, the question is whether it is on their power to enforce their decisions.

          You seem to have arrived at a suitable definition of "authority"

          • chmod7755 minutes ago
            "The authority" is an overloaded term in English, but "having authority" isn't. The latter implies a set of rules.
          • 11 minutes ago
            undefined
          • 20 minutes ago
            undefined
      • chasil6 minutes ago
        There is indeed a long list of criticisms of the ICC.

        The U.S., along with China, India, Russia, and many other nations, are not members and do not grant any weight to ICC rulings.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#C...

      • onedognight17 minutes ago
        The International Criminal Court was created by a treaty between sovereign nations. These nations chose to for it to have authority over them.
        • dmitrygr15 minutes ago
          > These nations chose to for it to have authority over them.

          Refresh my memory, what did USA choose about that?

          • vrganj10 minutes ago
            The US created its predecessor with the Nuremberg Trials. (Which I'm pretty sure Nazi Germany never signed up for, fwiw)

            Rules for thee, not for me.

      • sdcfgy30 minutes ago
        Well a lot of international diplomacy depends on trade and associated meetings. If someone is sanctioned by the ICC then they can't move money or visit any member countries.

        That is authority if you like it or not.

      • jcranmer29 minutes ago
        The treaties a country signs up to is a good start on defining what constitutes crimes.
      • a_paddy32 minutes ago
        Germany in the 30/40s, no notes?
      • mfost33 minutes ago
        It has as much if not more authority to judge crimes commited in the member countries that gave it that authority than Trump has to sanction them in the first place.
      • wilg29 minutes ago
        Quite simply because you are allowed to set up international organizations by treaty.
      • vrganj33 minutes ago
        How can a nation decide what is and isn't a crime? It's all made up, a "farce" to use your diction. We just choose to go along and build these institutions because living in lawlessness is worse.

        Why should we believe in the fantasy of the nation state, but not in the fantasy of international law? It's all just social constructs to create an ordered society that stops the worst excesses.

  • medina37 minutes ago
    The sanctions announcement coincided with a former ICC judge, Navanethem “Navi” Pillay, being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her contributions to enlarging the scope and impact of international law. -- https://thehill.com/policy/international/6138693-rubio-impos...
    • clcaev30 minutes ago
      Dr. Pillay also chaired the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory from 2021 to 2025.

      https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2026/pillay/facts/

      • _ache_5 minutes ago
        Cry cry, Netanyahu isn't a war criminal. Waa waa, this guy got the Nobel Prize and I didn't.
    • aatd864 minutes ago
      oh that matches. Current admin must feel guilty/wary of something. "Best defense is attack" type of reasoning. There is no reason otherwise.
  • hexis4 minutes ago
    The American Service-Members' Protection Act has been US law since 2002, and was nicknamed "the Hague Invasion Act, since the act would allow the president to order military action in The Hague, the seat of the ICC, to prevent U.S. or allied officials and military personnel from being prosecuted or detained by the ICC." The sanctions are new, but the posture is old and bipartisan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
  • cromkaan hour ago
    > America never joined the court. We don’t need it. And we don’t want it.

    Wow, so tough, much decision

  • hypfer21 minutes ago
    I was getting rather tired of SV opinions shaping all of our daily lives far outside the SV, but I did not expect that this would be how that would slowly end.

    Not a week passes without the US giving other nations very good reasons to cut out any dependencies on anything under their jurisdiction.

    Is California now panicking and exiting the United states? That would be really funny.

  • noitpmederan hour ago
    The article is (probably purposefully) unclear of what actually is happening here... what sanctions are being applied, to whom, and to what effect?
  • socializer3 minutes ago
    I know there's a lot of (deserved) hate for the current administration, but the ICC situation is somewhat nuanced. You can argue that international law doesn't / shouldn't exist because each country has the right to self-determination, and any disputes on that line are always decided by who has more economic sway or military strength. There's no world police that a smaller and less powerful country can send to arrest the leaders of a more powerful neighbor, unless they find enough friends with fighter jets.

    Now, as it happens, the US is one of the most economically and militarily powerful states out there, so they're the closest we have to an actual world police - but again, that police doesn't follow "international law", they act in what they think is the best interest of the West. That's how all regional powers roll, albeit on a smaller scale. Russia and China make claims to neighboring states, Germany unceremoniously protects its economic interests in the EU, Iran bankrolls terrorists in neighboring states who in turn bomb Iran, and so on.

    The ICC is a bit unusual in that it's an initiative of some Western states trying to get the most powerful state to play by their rules. It's a nice try, but also... obviously doomed? And it's not something the US can ignore, because the court does assert the authority to arrest and try US servicemen and politicians. So this was kinda inevitable, and if you think the sanctions are bad, consider the bipartisan Hague Invasion Act of 2002: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...

  • pluc35 minutes ago
    Why stop there? Let's do all other collaborative groups that don't put the US and their corrupted agenda first. You wanna be left alone and we don't want to have you so just make the calls.
  • mendym18 minutes ago
    Does this mean that Microsoft or Google can no longer offer services (like mail/office/search etc..) to the ICC? Similar to what happened with the ICC prosecutor last year?
    • _ache_8 minutes ago
      Yes, the CPI did manage to move out Microsoft / Google. I bet Apple is harder to escape.
  • 1a527dd525 minutes ago
    I believe the term is 'superpower suicide'. Amazing to see it in real-time.
    • qarl20 minutes ago
      Is that really a term?

      Regardless - I think it's safe to assume this isn't happening in a vacuum - there are a number of world players who profit from the collapse of the U.S. And all this trouble started the moment they could use the internet to feed stupid Americans their stupid propaganda.

    • tiahura12 minutes ago
      Is that what happened to europe?
  • WhyNotHugo31 minutes ago
    Meanwhile, the EU is working on further entrenching payment and identity into American service providers (mainly: Apple and Google).

    Do these sanctions also affect anyone working at the ICC?

  • yzydserd43 minutes ago
    If you choose not to join a club, you don’t need to try to “cripple its ability to operate”.
    • maratc30 minutes ago
      This is not a perfect analogy: when I choose not to join a club, I have a reasonable expectation of that club not declaring me its member, and not fighting me for failing to follow the rules that the club established.
      • monocasa20 minutes ago
        If you go to someone else's house who is a member of that club and has agreed to follow its rules, it's not crazy to think you'd be held to them there.

        Which is all the ICC can do to nations that aren't signatories to the Rome statute.

        • maratc8 minutes ago
          > it's not crazy to think you'd be held to them there.

          It's not crazy to think that I won't be served meat if I'm going to a house of a vegetarian. It is however crazy to think that I will be stoned in that house for having eaten meat in the past.

      • zarzavat6 minutes ago
        It's really not complicated. You can be prosecuted for crimes committed inside a another state even if you were not physically present in that state. When that state has ratified the Rome Statute then you can be prosecuted by the ICC because that state lends its jurisdiction to the ICC.
    • gunslinger_meta29 minutes ago
      You do if they're bullying you for not joining.
      • mfost26 minutes ago
        Just like the US is bullying them for let me check: dare to try perosnally having a bank account and do online payments.
  • dogmayor12 minutes ago
    Did a child write this? So embarrassing to be an American.
  • rbanffyan hour ago
    That's the kind of thing only a rogue state would do.
  • pu_pe25 minutes ago
    So just when the whole Greenland debacle seemed to be settled, it's time to create another rift with the EU.
  • 31 minutes ago
    undefined
  • franczesko12 minutes ago
    All of this, because one war criminal can't come to Europe anymore
  • SillyUsername17 minutes ago
    I'm confused, if you're not a criminal, what have you got to hide?

    See the similarity here...?

  • curiousllama33 minutes ago
    Some context per the below articles, and as a general IR nerd.

    The proximal cause of the sanctions appears to be that the Nobel Peace Prize was won by a former ICC judge, and Trump covets it.

    The distal cause is that the US never joined the ICC, arguing that US political & military leaders should not be subject to a binding foreign jurisdiction. This is a longstanding disagreement, with bipartisan consensus in DC.

    Putting pressure on this disagreement, the ICC has a warrants out for Netanyahu and others that the current administration views as a political & military ally.

    My interpretation is basically: this is a petty move about the Nobel, which builds on a long-simmering disagreement about the role of international law.

    https://apnews.com/article/us-icc-trump-rubio-4ea3555403e3c6... https://www.reuters.com/world/us-imposes-sanctions-internati...

    • bediger400017 minutes ago
      Isn't the concept of "bipartisan" anything suspicious today? Republicans turned away from most of the "movement conservative" principles in 2017. Rule of law personal responsibility, small local government, free markets, all either ignored or only paid lip service.

      Previous bipartisan consensus thus means nothing. Bipartisan consensus now means everyone capitulated to Trump's whim of the day.

      • curiousllama11 minutes ago
        Bipartisan consensus means "at this moment, neither party opposes this policy"

        It is indeed fragile since, as you point out, it only takes one party (or in Rs case, one person) to eliminate the consensus. Consensus comes and goes.

        And yet, it's notable when through the chaos, both parties have consistently maintained lockstep agreement for 30 years.

  • 7 minutes ago
    undefined
  • resters44 minutes ago
    It's hard to tell which executive orders are meant as a joke and which are meant as sincere (but horrible) policy perspectives.

    I suspect this one was actually meant as a joke, although it is not remotely funny in my opinion.

    Someone in Trump's orbit who writes them gets an immature charge out of trolling people.

    So far my prediction about Trump have sadly been correct: The US is getting weaker and poorer every day.

    • b5n7 minutes ago
      The picture is much clearer when you accept that they are never jokes.

      "They're trolling" is simply a juvenile defense that provides the cult and its members with plausible deniability.

      The world might be slightly better off if we'd all taken them seriously from the start, but taking clowns and the accompanying circus seriously is unintuitive to most.

    • jimbokun22 minutes ago
      A world in which official statements from the US State Department and a joke are indistinguishable.
    • curiousllama22 minutes ago
      A lot of these weird actions actually build on long-simmering disagreements. Which is weird - like if a state governor got drunk and tried to shut down immigration enforcement.

      Is this a legitimate policy decision? Maybe - but it sure reads like the ranting of a drunk.

    • jimt123432 minutes ago
      > ...gets an immature charge out of trolling people.

      That describes MAGA perfectly.

  • bfleschan hour ago
    I don't understand why this is such an urgent topic. Is ICC currently prosecuting an US citizen?
    • medina38 minutes ago
      The sanctions announcement coincided with a former ICC judge, Navanethem “Navi” Pillay, being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her contributions to enlarging the scope and impact of international law. -- https://thehill.com/policy/international/6138693-rubio-impos...
    • jeroenhd22 minutes ago
      The Americans got upset first because the ICC wants to take action against the Israeli genocide of the Palestinian people.

      But now it just happens to be that their president didn't get the Nobel peace price. The person who did was a judge on the ICC.

      It could be a complete coincidence, of course. I mean, if it isn't, it would reinforce the notion of the USA being a clown of a country, which I'm sure Americans would prevent.

    • actionfromafar43 minutes ago
      An Israeli citizen probably.
  • vrganj43 minutes ago
    Yikes.

    Another match lighting US soft power on fire

    The last round of ICC sanctions got everyone here talking about tech sovereignty, now France and Germany are rolling their own productivity suites, the Netherlands are rolling their own NixOS distro, etc etc.

    This is just going to further hurt US interests. Biting the hand that feeds, burning down their own empire out of hubris. And Americans voted for this! Twice!

    It's time the EU rolls out the Blocking Statute [0] to counteract this nonsense.

    [0] https://finance.ec.europa.eu/eu-and-world/open-strategic-aut...

    • actionfromafar41 minutes ago
      I have read here on this here HN, that "soft power" does not in fact exist, and therefore cannot be lost!

      So, good news I guess. Everything is fine. Trump is the best president ever in the history of the world.

      • conmod27830 minutes ago
        There is cantillon effect happening here with respect to trust in govts. media and institutions in general. People are becoming distrustful but slowly. Those who are on internet a lot know about these topics in depth but people farther away take time to adjust to New Reality.
      • BoggleOhYeah16 minutes ago
        This place is populated by people that have rotted out their intelligence and morals by obsessively reading and regurgitating “rationalist” blogspam.
  • HackerThemAllan hour ago
    Will Trump be able to change the law so that he becomes a lifetime dictator of USA?
    • jimbokun20 minutes ago
      He will try but even the Supreme Court has shown they are willing to place limits on his power, ruling against him in some cases. So I don't think he has a pathway to bypassing the 22nd Amendment.
      • monocasa17 minutes ago
        I think that decision is still a bit in flux and won't truly be made until late 2027.
    • epguian hour ago
      At the end of the day, the law is what people agree it is… And people don’t seem to be too interested in keeping the lunatic in check.
      • resters40 minutes ago
        It's truly bizarre. I think some of his supporters think that they are all in on the joke and that he doesn't mean half of it. But at this point there is zero evidence good faith, zero evidence of strategy. Just one odd PR stunt after another that someone can day trade on if they know about it a few hours in advance.
      • jimbokun20 minutes ago
        The Supreme Court doesn't seem too interested in letting the 22nd Amendment slide.

        Even they have their limits.

    • actionfromafar38 minutes ago
      He does not seem to care much for laws in general. Why change them when you can just ignore them? Much less work.
    • wg042 minutes ago
      Putin would hope so because there's no other way.