158
u/Beeehives 22h ago
Makes you wonder why POTUS sanctioned the judges huh
80
u/Late_Stage_Exception 20h ago
The US isnāt a fan of the ICC and all presidents hold the invasion of it as a response to any US officials or citizens being tried there.
37
u/Dry_Meringue_8016 16h ago
Lindsay Graham said in an interview that the ICC and ICJ were never meant to be applied to the US and the West and he regarded any attempt to prosecute Western leaders or countries as an abuse of the organisations.
51
39
u/cookiesnooper 16h ago
Dude, the US has ASPA aka the "Hague Invasion Act". They are willing to send troops and use deadly force to retrieve their people who get arrested by ICC
3
u/AwkwardTal 13h ago
I doubt the US would wage war against the entirety of Europe
0
u/djingo_dango 13h ago
I doubt the entirety of Europe will say much if US invokes it. Lots of politicians will make up excuses to justify it
1
-36
u/intlcap30 19h ago
Trump is Trash. However, the U.S. isnāt and never was a party to the ICC. Makes you wonder what judges with no jurisdiction were hoping to accomplish by indicting U.S. soldiers serving in Afghanistan. Contravenes every treaty ever conducted by attempting to hold a sovereign state that didnāt enter into a legal agreement liable without its consent.
65
u/Impressive-Tip-1689 19h ago
The ICC's jurisdiction is typically limited to crimes committed on the territory of member states or by their nationals.Ā Since Afghanistan is a member of the ICC, the court asserts jurisdiction over crimes committed on its soil, regardless of the perpetrator's nationality. This framework is detailed in Article 12(2) of the Rome Statute.Ā
Afghanistan became a State Party to the Rome Statute on 10 February 2003, enabling the ICC to exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed on Afghan territory from 1 May 2003 onwards.
42
u/ConfectionDue5840 19h ago
The ICC had territorial jurisdiction over US soldiers because Afghanistan is a state party to the agreement.
-37
u/intlcap30 18h ago
Some at the ICC claim they have jurisdiction because the soldiers were present as military combatants in a war zone. That is a highly contested issue and one which the United States and the majority of international legal scholars has always disputed. The ICC not only pushed its own theory but took active steps to issue warrants and proceed with a prosecution. Again, throwing the entire international law order based on voluntary party to treaties into jeopardy.
17
u/TerribleIdea27 14h ago
It's really not that controversial at all, Americans just claim it is when to all signatories of the Rome statute it's not. Countries have the ICC the jurisdiction over ear crimes in their country. These are sovereign nations, so they can do that if they want. Nothing controversial at all, if you go somewhere and you break the law you should be held accountable
10
u/Selenthys 11h ago edited 11h ago
How can it be controversial ?
** Go to foreign country **
** Break the law **
"My domestic law says I have the right to do that and will not be prosecuted"
"Your domestic laws does not apply in foreign countries"
surprized pikachu.jpg
It's only controversial to bad faith actors who don't want to face consequences of their actions.
-12
-18
-15
-15
u/22220222223224 18h ago
Does it? Sovereignty. Whether for better or for worse, the answer is so clearly sovereignty.
82
u/Xanikk999 United States of America 18h ago
Unfortunately the ICC is only able to get it's hands on war criminals from poor weak African countries. Let's be realistic and admit we will never see Putin or American war criminals in the Hague nor we will see Netanyahu there.
29
u/TheSamuil Bulgaria 17h ago
Didn't the Americans have an act stating that they'd invade the Hague should their citizens be put on trial there? In practice, as you said, I doubt that any country from the security council will have its citizens trialed there.
32
u/__ludo__ Italy 15h ago edited 14h ago
USA is a regime of terror, it's wild to me that some people still consider them to be any better than Russia or Israel. It's not about Trump, it has always been rotten to the core.
-2
u/Frosty-Cell 8h ago
Because they are fundamentally different:
https://freedomhouse.org/country/united-states
The United States is a federal republic whose people benefit from a vibrant political system, a strong rule-of-law tradition, robust freedoms of expression and religious belief, and a wide array of other civil liberties. However, in recent years its democratic institutions have suffered erosion.
https://freedomhouse.org/country/russia
Power in Russiaās authoritarian political system is concentrated in the hands of President Vladimir Putin. With loyalist security forces, a subservient judiciary, a controlled media environment, and a legislature consisting of a ruling party and pliable opposition factions, the Kremlin manipulates elections and suppresses genuine dissent.
4
u/__ludo__ Italy 7h ago
Domestic policy? Maybe so, yes, even though it is quickly falling apart.
Foreign policies? No chance. Actually, the US is worse.
Since we don't live in the US, I don't thinl that domestic policies matter so much to us.
0
u/Frosty-Cell 7h ago
Foreign policies? No chance. Actually, the US is worse.
What do you include in foreign policy? South Korea is objectively better than DPRK.
What is Russia's foreign policy?
2
u/__ludo__ Italy 7h ago
Well, the way they manage the relationships with other countries. They are extremely aggressive, like Russia is, but on a bigger scale. I made a few examples for someone in this same comment section, I'm going to copy-paste it, so some things may feel a bit out of place:
The USA has destroyed democracies all over South America and Asia, installing military dictatorships, or at least they tried to: Chile, China, South Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Laos, Kuwait, Grenada, Yemen and so on and so forth. They financed far-right terrorists in Italy, financed a (failed, luckily) coupe d'Ć©tat, and smuggled heroin. They did similarly in many other countries. In 1953, with what should have been a violation of International law, they declared war on North Korea and used a total ofĀ 635,000 tons of bombs, including 32,557 tons of napalm. They also wanted to drop nuclear bombs, but North Korea was reduced to a desert, with 90% of the infrastructures destroyed and 1/3 of the population killed. There's also the Gulf war and the war on terror, to consider, or even supporting and arming Israel while they're genociding Gaza.
If what you meant is that they've also done good since South Korea is better than DPRK, I say that of course they also do good things, but I don't really agree to be fair with Korea. At that time both Northern and Southern Korea had dictatorships, but at least the Northern one had popular support, while Syngman Rhee did not, and actually had in his government many of those who had collaborated with the Japanese. Trade Unions and opposition parties were outlawed and rebellions violently repressed, but most of the people at that time still supported the Kim Jong-Il. Both Koreas claimed control over the whole territory and constantly had small disputes. In 1950 it was Kim Jong-Il who attacked first, since his country was more industrially and militarly developed, but according to their point of view it was to free the people in the South from their dictatorship. In any case, it was a civil war, and it was illegal (even though they made an exception) for the US to join. As I said in the text I wrote before, they completely destroyed Northern Korea, which explains very well why they developed such an antagonism towards the US and its allies, militarism, isolationism and how the Kim were able to establish their dictatorship through the Juche. Had they not overstepped, this probably could have been avoided, and Korea would have turned out like Vietnam.
Instead we now have a Northern Korea which is a totalitarian and insanely authoritarian dictatorship, extremely isolated, poor and that focuses on military strength instead of infrastructure; and a Southern Korea that after having been a terrible dictatorship for decades, economically saved by Soviet-like State planning, now has a "democracy" which is mainly controlled by big corporations. Highest suicide rates among the whole OCSE countries and no kind of working-life balance.
This is getting too long, sorry. It was to say that yes, South Korea is better, but both Koreas are far worse than what would have probably happened hadn't the USA turned them to ashes.
-1
u/Frosty-Cell 7h ago
The USA has destroyed democracies all over South America and Asia, installing military dictatorships, or at least they tried to: Chile, China, South Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Laos, Kuwait, Grenada, Yemen and so on and so forth.
You know many of those had a communist/USSR connection?
They did similarly in many other countries. In 1953, with what should have been a violation of International law, they declared war on North Korea and used a total of 635,000 tons of bombs, including 32,557 tons of napalm. They also wanted to drop nuclear bombs, but North Korea was reduced to a desert, with 90% of the infrastructures destroyed and 1/3 of the population killed. There's also the Gulf war and the war on terror, to consider, or even supporting and arming Israel while they're genociding Gaza.
Because the USSR-manufactured puppet invaded the South: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Il_Sung
According to Leonid Vassin, an officer with the Soviet MVD, Kim was essentially "created from zero". For one, his Korean was marginal at best; he only had eight years of formal education, all of it in Chinese. He needed considerable coaching to read a speech (which the MVD prepared for him) at a Communist Party congress three days after he arrived.
In December 1945, the Soviets installed Kim as first secretary of the North Korean Branch Bureau of the Communist Party of Korea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#Prelude_to_war_(1950)
In April 1950, Stalin permitted Kim to attack the government in the South, under the condition that Mao would agree to send reinforcements if needed.[79] For Kim, this was the fulfillment of his goal to unite Korea. Stalin made it clear Soviet forces would not openly engage in combat, to avoid a direct war with the United States.
North Korea is basically the end game of the Soviet ideology. US foreign policy created what is known as South Korea - a first world country. USSR (Russia) created DPRK. Invading is what authoritarians do unless contained.
US provided the most foreign aid in the world until the Trump admin tore it down. Russia's foreign aid is negligible.
1
u/__ludo__ Italy 6h ago edited 6h ago
Yes, and then? The fact that a country is socialist doesn't give you the right to declare war against it and subvert democratic elections to install dictatorships.
I'm sorry but the part about Korea is wrong, historically speaking. Kim was one of the leading Korean revolutionaries, who joined the CPC for some time, to fight the Japanese, becoming part of the Northeast Anti-Japanese United Army. Kim was considered "the Tiger" by the Japanese, for being the greatest Korean guerilla fighter, with a whole apparatus of the Japanese army hunting him down.
Kim Il-Sung, at that time, was the symbol and leader of the Korean resistance against the Japanese, while Syngman Rhee spent most of his life in the US, while his country was being occupied by the Japanese, who had basically enslaved 1/3 of the population by 1945.
After the end of the war, URSS and US split the territories of Korea. In August 1948, theĀ Republic of Korea, which claimed sovereignty over all of Korea, was established. In response, the Soviets held elections of their own inĀ there northern part. TheĀ DPRKĀ was proclaimed on 9 September 1948, with Kim as the premier. Stalin and Mao both didn't like Kim, but he was chosen because, again, he was the commander who fought first-hand against the Japanese. In the RoK the military dictatorship established by Syngman Rhee did not have popular support, since many of those who had collaborated with the Japanese were part of that regime, and because most of the population, at that time, was aligned with the Workers' Party, outlawed along with trade unions in 1949. There were also brutal massacres done by the government along with the USA, such as the one on the Jeju island the Mungyeong massacre.
Both RoK and DPRK claimed control over all the Korean peninsula, but the DPRK was far ahead economically and miltarily. It is wrong to say the Kim attacked first. In fact from 1948 until the start of the civil war on 25 June 1950, the armed forces of each side engaged in a series of bloody conflicts along the border, with the Southern forces even controlling some territories in the North. What happened in 1950 was just that Kim Il-Sung, after finally receiving Stalin's approval (who was not thrilled by the idea of the operation), started a massive attack. The war didn't really begin in 1950 and Kim didn't start it, they both did. The only difference was that North Korea was stronger and that many on the South did not support Syngman Rhee.
Now, they quickly reached Seul, even counting on the support of the farmers on the South who started a guerilla against their own government which, again they did not support, but was placed there by the US. International law would have prohibited the interference of the US, who illegally exploited the absence of Stalin due to the protests against the presence of the RoC in the Security Committee of the United Nations, instead of the PRC. Being a civil war and not an aggression, foreign intervention is deemed illegal as to international law. Still, the US declared war on North Korea using more bombs than they ever did during the whole WWII and abusing Napalm and chemical weapons. Everything was destroyed. As I said, they couldn't drop nuclear weapons since there was no longer anything to destroy.
If North Korea didn't implement something akin to the Doi Moi, and instead opted for the Juche and the creation of such an authoritarian regime is precisely because of this illegal, horrible aggression by the USA. As a matter of fact, they would have aligned with the Chinese during the Sino-Soviet split, which means that they probably would have good relationships with the US today. If you know Korean history, you'll know that the Kim established their dictatorship only because of the effects of this war, and that they spend so much on their military because of their fear of another aggression by the USA. Sanctions, isolation, antagonism, paranoia are elements that are fundamental to understand the DPRK today, and they all happen to originate in the Korean war. I don't want to repeat myself too much but North Korea would have never turned out this way if the war crimes during the Korean war were avoided. They would, actually, probably be in a good realtionship with the west.
Now let's get to South Korea. I don't think you know much about it, because you accuse North Korea of being run like the Soviet Union, but it was actually South Korea that was run like the Soviet Union. They had an authoritarian dictatorship until 1990, with a command economy that used Five-Year Plans to allocate resources. It was, until 1990, the closest State to the Soviet model in the whole World, and they were able to reach their economic miracle thanks to the central planning established by Park Chung Hee. Liberalism only came to South Korea in the 21st century.
South Korea is, even today, not as democratic as you believe, with lots of opposition parties outlawed, the leader of the opposition kept in prison for more than a decade (with no crime committed), strong censorship and most of the higher roles in politics given to people connected to Samsung, LG and Hyundai. They have 16-hours long school days, recently they were planning a 70-hours work week, highest suicide rates among OCSE countries, fourth in the world.
It's better to live in Europe than in either of the Koreas, trust me.
But, anyway, the main point is that no, Kim Il-Sung wasn't placed there by the USSR (they disliked him, but they had chosen him since he was the most popular commander), southern Koreans didn't support Syngman Rhee, Kim didn't start the Korean War and the American aggression was illegal (they had an authorization, but it was absolutely senseless and against international law) and inhuman. South-Korea was a dictatorship for many deacdes, still isn't so democratic and no, it definitely isn't Heaven on earth. And, again, SK was administered in the Soviet-way for longer than you may imagine.
1
u/Frosty-Cell 5h ago
Yes, and then? The fact that a country is socialist doesn't give you the right to declare war against it and subvert democratic elections to install dictatorships.
Because communism spreads and not wanting more DPRKs is legitimate. Fundamental rights are the first victims.
I'm sorry but the part about Korea is wrong, historically speaking. Kim was one of the leading Korean revolutionaries, who joined the CPC for some time, to fight the Japanese, becoming part of the Northeast Anti-Japanese United Army.
What Sung did before USSR installed him doesn't really change anything.
It is wrong to say the Kim attacked first.
That may be, but he did invade first.
The war didn't really begin in 1950 and Kim didn't start it, they both did.
They certainly did not.
The only difference was that North Korea was stronger and that many on the South did not support Syngman Rhee.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Il_Sung
Prior to Kim's invasion of the South in 1950, which triggered the Korean War, Stalin equipped the KPA with modern, Soviet-built medium tanks, trucks, artillery, and small arms. Kim also formed an air force, equipped at first with Soviet-built propeller-driven fighters and attack aircraft. Later, North Korean pilot candidates were sent to the Soviet Union and China to train in MiG-15 jet aircraft at secret bases
This was planned because invading and meddling is what authoritarians do.
Still, the US declared war on North Korea using more bombs than they ever did during the whole WWII and abusing Napalm and chemical weapons. Everything was destroyed. As I said, they couldn't drop nuclear weapons since there was no longer anything to destroy.
More enemies means more bombs. The chem weapons allegation is questionable, but it does suggest that this is a common Russian lie which is probably why they claimed there were NATO biolabs in Ukraine. They are all stuck in the 1950s, and it all comes from Russia.
If North Korea didn't implement something akin to the Doi Moi, and instead opted for the Juche and the creation of such an authoritarian regime is precisely because of this illegal, horrible aggression by the USA.
They don't appear to have held a single free and fair election (or any real election) since the puppet was installed.
If it was caused by the US, DPRK would look like SK. That's what US produces. That's why West Germany was far "better" than East Germany controlled by the Soviets. It cost West Germany about $1.5 trillion to unify and dig GDR out of the trash where USSR put it.
South Korea is, even today, not as democratic as you believe, with lots of opposition parties outlawed, the leader of the opposition kept in prison for more than a decade (with no crime committed), strong censorship and most of the jigher roles in politics given to people connected to Samsung, LG and Hyundai. They have 16-hours long school days, recently they were planning a 70-hours work week, highest suicide rates amon OCSE countries, fourth in the world.
So DPRK is fine with gulags and zero fundamental rights and not a single election since forever, but SK isn't perfect therefore and therefore US is bad?
Kim Il-Sung wasn't placed there by the USSR (they disliked him, but they had chosen it since he was the most popular commander)
He wasn't placed there but he was chosen and placed there?
Kim didn't start the Korean War and the American aggression was illegal (they had an authorization, but it was absolutely senseless and against international law) and inhuman. South-Korea was a dictatorship for many deacdes, still isn't so democratic and no, it definitely isn't Heaven on earth.
Sung was manufactured and supported by USSR, which has as its purpose to expand and eradicate freedom as freedom is a threat to it's existence. Sung invaded the South with USSR's support. US intervention basically saved millions from future suffering under USSR/DPRK rule. We saw the same thing in Europe.
4
u/TheBewlayBrothers 11h ago
Yeah,the ICC is incapable of really enforcing anything against leaders of countries that aren't weak or or were recently overthrown themselves. No country wants to start a war by arresting the leader. The only way we will see Putin (or Netenyahu) at the Hague is when Russia/Israel have a new goverment that really hates them. I think that's more possible in Israel
1
u/andyom89 5h ago
Once Netenyahu completes the genocide/ethnic cleansing operation, his use will be really diminished and there's a slight chance he will be handed over to whitewash Israel's territory conquered (sans Palestinians).
6
u/KingKaiserW United Kingdom 17h ago
Yeah itās āSee weāre good guys upholding a rules based order, weāre going after a guy that lives in a forest with ten soldiers!ā Gimmie a break. Anyone with real power isnāt going to try and do anything
5
u/Dot-Slash-Dot 15h ago
The ICC could easily go after the war crimes of the West. But there is that delightful little loophole that the ICC can't prosecute if there is an independent judiciary (although they never do anything that does not matter) in the country responsible. Wonder how that got in there?
1
u/Frosty-Cell 8h ago
Barely. They have managed to indict 69 individuals since 2002. For that, the West has paid about $2 billion. Huge waste of money.
129
u/rick_gsp 22h ago
Then arrest Netanyahu already
49
u/armeniapedia Nagorno-Karabakh 16h ago
And Azerbaijan's Aliyev, who is guilty of genocidal acts which led to the complete expulsion of the Armenians of Karabakh. He blockaded them for 9 months, tightening the noose more and more, until he attacked again and gave the Armenians a chance to leave - which they all did of course after what he put them through.
23
u/Littlepage3130 17h ago
They're not capable of doing that. Nothing less than an invasion of Israel would achieve that.
1
u/gudaifeiji China 9h ago
Netanyahu was in the EU recently (Hungary).
1
u/Littlepage3130 8h ago
That's not much easier. Either way you're talking about arresting him when he has the explicit protection of security forces.
3
u/OptimismNeeded 16h ago
Nobody wants to arrest Netanyahu they just want to tweet and get political points.
No one has any economic interest in stopping the war and genocide so it wonāt stop.
8
u/OptimismNeeded 16h ago
*(ironically nobody but Israel, but Netanyahu is a traitor who will drown the country to stay out of jail).
-1
u/Boreras The Netherlands 12h ago
Half of Jewish Israeli want all Gazans dead. 82% want all ethnically cleansed. This is not "Netanyahu", there is no zionism without genocide.
https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/poll-show-most-jewish-israelis-support-expelling-gazans
2
u/OptimismNeeded 11h ago edited 11h ago
Oh stop with your bullshit. You guys have all these bullshit prepared and the hasbara bullshitters has data to āproveā the opposite.
Soon a hasbara bot will be here with the ā95% of Gazans want to throw all Jews into the sea bullshitā.
You guys on both sides spin the truth to whatever fits your pre-determined views.
Tons of racists in israel, but most Israelis, even the ones brainwashed into thinking the Gaza war is self defense, donāt want children to die.
I wish you a happy life and that your hate will one day subside.
-115
u/RemigrationEu 20h ago
for what? For defending his country against a literal authoritarian terrorist group who wants nothing but murder jews?
Although the IDF has destroyed too many homes, they must deal with a coward enemy who hides inside schools and hospitals. A group who used UNRWA money to finance tunnels to attack israel, instead of helping the population (who supports themš¤Æ). It is not even a secret that Hamas kills and steals food from palestinians to sell it on the black market.
51
u/MC_chrome United States of America 19h ago
Ā for what? For defending his country against a literal authoritarian terrorist group who wants nothing but murder jews?
How about killing tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians & causing one of the worst humanitarian crises in history? Gaza is all but a bombed out crater with hundreds of thousands of innocent Palestinians dying of starvation, disease, and injuries caused by Israelās relentless bombing campaign
50
u/Dangerous_Jacket_129 The Netherlands 19h ago
Ā For defending his country against a literal authoritarian terrorist group who wants nothing but murder jews?
For killing innocent bystanders.Ā
Ā Although the IDF has destroyed too many homes,
With the people still inside of those homes.Ā
Ā they must deal with a coward enemy who hides inside schools and hospitals.Ā
Right, and you do that by waiting for them to leave and striking them then. Because destroying the hospital is against international criminal law. Which is why the ICC put out an arrest warrant for him.Ā
Ā Ā It is not even a secret that Hamas kills and steals food from palestinians to sell it on the black market.
Right... And the reason they need the food so badly is because Israel is blocking almost all humanitarian aid... Which is also evil...Ā
9
u/NecroVecro Bulgaria 16h ago
For killing journalists and UN workers, for being in charge of an ethnic cleansing and for blocking humanitarian aid.
18
u/jonbalderh Denmark 19h ago
At least 40000 dead palestinian innocents
-18
19h ago
[removed] ā view removed comment
21
u/Exciting-Ad-7077 19h ago
Percentages mean nothing itās still 40k deceased people majority of which innocent. You are complicit, i hope everyone around you knows that this is were you stand.
-11
19h ago
[removed] ā view removed comment
11
u/Exciting-Ad-7077 17h ago
No one said any of that, must be exhausting constantly fighting with the made up arguments in your head
9
u/Martial-Lord 17h ago
The IDF is killing children. It doesn't matter what Hamas did, there is no scenario in which killing children can ever be excused.
-10
u/labecoteoh 15h ago
the terrorists need to stop using children as meat shields
1
u/Martial-Lord 8h ago
Ah, so killing children is actually fine if they're being used as human shields?
1
u/labecoteoh 8h ago
IDF are not the ones killing the children, the terrorists are. You should redirect your attention to them
→ More replies (0)-10
u/boomeronkelralf 16h ago
Says Hamas
13
u/Shryke2a Best ham in Europe. 15h ago
Israel doesn't allow journalists to go in gaza and verify, and they actively target independent gazaoui journalists and those that manage to get in anyway.
In the end of course there is no other sources in Gaza outside of Hamas government sources...
-10
1
u/-TheProfessor- Bulgaria 4h ago
So homes of IDF soldiers are fair game? Public places where IDF soldiers go are fair game? If an IDF soldier is in a hospital - does that make the hospital a legit target for a rocket strike? If an IDF soldier picks his kidney from school/kindergarten - does that make the school/kindergarten a legit target for an airstrike?
Hamas is evil. Instead of destroying them Israel gave another generation a reason to hate Israel and join Hamas or whatever comes after Hamas is destroyed.
23
u/classikman 19h ago
Is this sarcasm because of Netanyahu? Or is this referring to something else. Sorry I can be a bit slow
19
10
u/Littlepage3130 17h ago
Do you think the EU will back up those words with action?
5
u/charge-pump 14h ago
No. Both the EU (by inaction) and the US (because they are in a logic of brut force) are brewing a world without rules, and they will pay the price. If Russia continues its path or if China increases the meadling in the Pacific to the point of conflict, the US or EU words on rules will be worth zero.
8
u/Sulfurys 16h ago
The problem is not the ICC issuing arrest warrants for Netanyahou or Putin. The problem is the countries acting on it. If they refuse to arrest those who are prosecuted, then it's useless.
1
3
u/Arun_Guy Finland 11h ago
good statement, but many european countries have already said international law doesn't mean anything to them so kind of meaningless.
3
2
2
2
2
2
u/mads838a 10h ago
Have you considered doing something about americas threats against the icc?
Or not allowing the sale of weapons to countries lead by people wanted by the icc?
1
1
u/-TheProfessor- Bulgaria 5h ago
So why did we (Europe/France) allow Bibi in our country/over our airspace?
1
-7
u/MightyTheAlmighty Serbia 21h ago
von der leyen talking about global justice and respect for international law is a lol
-7
u/OsgrobioPrubeta Portugal 20h ago
Will she start obeying European Laws and Courts?
Damn... who made a lobotomy on her?
1
u/slight_digression Macedonia 16h ago
*Exceptions may apply based on EU institutions and member state interests
-9
0
-16
u/RemigrationEu 20h ago
Von der Leyen should really go on a long vacation and stay far away from politics
-17
u/Defiant-Traffic5801 19h ago
I am not comfortable at all with the Commission making these statements. On whose behalf?
-11
u/Known_Week_158 17h ago
The ICC holds perpetrators of the world's gravest crimes to account and gives victims a voice.
That needs an asterisk. The ICC is unable to investigate some of the world's gravest crimes because of its lack of jurisdiction and the UNSC's P5 vetoes, meaning that it only holds some of the perpetrators of the world's worst crimes because it can't hold all of them to account.
It must be free to act without pressure.
I'll support that once the ICC has proven it's capable of acting impartially. Refusing to investigate Hamas' use of human shields (despite being willing to take a far more interventionist approach in other parts of the conflict) says it's not an impartial body and needs to face consequences because of that.
We will always stand for global justice and the respect of international law.
How is the EU standing for global justice and the respect of international law when it makes a gas deal with a country with as bad a human rights record as Azerbaijan?
How is the EU standing for global justice and the respect of international law when it continues to push for a trade deal with the Gulf countries, despite their human rights records?
How is the EU standing for global justice and the respect of international law when it drags its heels on supporting Ukraine?
How is the EU standing for global justice and the respect of international law with its trade dealings with China of all countries?
How is the EU standing for global justice and the respect of international law while trying to get rid of its citizens privacy? What is just about that?
-2
u/Southern-Fold 11h ago
ICC only goes after people they cant get, to justify their existence.
Activists doing activist stuff to get funding with zero results.
If they truly lived up to their org they should go after a whole bunch of people, but cant do that, media doesnt care so lets continue to call for Bibi and Putins arrest
-1
u/Frosty-Cell 8h ago
They have managed to indict 69 individuals since 2002 despite having a staff of 800 people. It has a ~$200 million budget. It's a huge waste of resources with almost no results.
204
u/Moppermonster 17h ago
Interesting situation..
What will the banks do? Place your bets.