What's next after ICC, start of slavery?
https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-be...
This is done just to please some foreign pals.
> a) granting immunity to heads of state;
> b) excluding the Court's jurisdiction over nationals of non-state parties, even when they commit crimes on the territory of a state party; and
> c) denying the Court's jurisdiction over cases covered by national legislation.
Basically, no skin in the game for the decision makers, a will to power for the foot soldiers, and a panopticon for everyone else.
This may be a hard sell as 2/3rds majority is required to bring any Rome Statue amends into force.
The title is wrong. Negotiating to do something is not the same as doing the thing.
Would you listen someone if they come to your house and start claiming it? Would you negotiate with them?
Dismantling ICC is taking something from all of us.
Like, is Europe just completely fucking asleep? You can play China and US off against each other, then the US will think twice when their supposed allies run to their enemies.
You can't win a battle when you have 20 generals and require the force of 20 in the way, when each has its own agenda and incentives and some of them are easy to buy
I don’t understand how this makes the Netherlands a terrorist state nor America the good guys.
No, this is an intentionally reductive framing. Palestinians are killed to realize the objectives of Zionism, which have shaped Israel since before its foundation. The entire country and its history are behind it, not just Netanyahu.
So maybe we should be dismantling the Murdoch empire.
Meanwhile the UN GA keeps screaming for 3 things:
1) for the ICC stay away from "internal affairs" (stuff happening in countries who haven't agreed to the treaty of Rome)
Even the Netherlands demanded the ICC stay away from the siege of Srebrenica (because a Dutch commander and deployment, "Dutchbat", oversaw the massacre they were there to prevent. The commander who oversaw this total disaster was promoted and knighted instead, and then de-knighted some years later) [1]
2) to convict Israel (Which has retreated from the treaty of Rome)
3) to convict Russia (which is guilty of crimes in Ukraine, which do fall under the treaty of Rome)
At least the Russia stuff is somewhat admirable. Until you start looking at what happens on the ground (gets to the UN SC, where Russia and China and sometimes France object to do anything to Russia, and of course the UN GA refuses to do anything for money reasons)
The UN, like it's predecessor the League of Nations, just does nothing. Worse: it is constantly used as an excuse to do nothing about serious situations, like currently Sudan, for example. The UN is a great ideal, a "world police", that countries DO NOT WANT, especially not dictatorships and muslim countries. And the organization is in practice constantly used as the exact opposite of the ideal it supposedly represents. The world, very much, does not want peace at this point, or at the very least you can say, it's not willing to give up any economic reward for peace, certainly not elsewhere. Of course, these days, the UN's predecessor (same buildings, same people), the League of Nations, is not just blamed for doing nothing, but was the organization behind the treaty of Versailles, now generally considered the cause of WW2, as it caused the decades-long economic disaster that remade the Weimar Republic into the third reich.
And when the UN does interfere, well, the last 3 places they interfered were Lebanon, Haiti, and Sudan. I wonder how things are going in those 3 places? The first one was "the Congo problem", Katanga in Congo in Africa. I wonder what happened there when the UN withdrew ...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutchbat
[2] the Dreyfus affair (which, by the way, is a particularly egregious instance of this happening as part of a systematic campaign to do so in France, not an isolated incident)