Just a reminder: the ICC was founded in the aftermath of WWII, when Jews had no voice and no one fighting for them.
Israel’s finance minister, one of the most senior ministers in the government:
“No one in the world will allow us to starve two million civilians to death, even though it may be justified and moral, until our hostages are returned.”
Israel’s defense minister:
“I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel. Everything is closed. We are fighting human animals, and we are acting accordingly.”
Milosevic got convicted because his own government wanted that. The government put in by the American campaign during the Yugoslav civil war. And that's basically the only way to get convicted before the ICC: if your own government wants it to happen. But the new government was far less popular than Milosevic so having him convicted in Amsterdam was very useful.
Funny how other people involved who also committed "international crimes" got let of. For example, in the Yugoslav war, at the Srebrenica massacre the leader of the UN forces, a Dutch commander by the name of Tom Karremans, tasked with preventing what happened not only committed war crimes with his forces, but also obviously let the situation escalate. He was given a medal by the Queen of the Netherlands, about 5km from the ICC building. Obviously there were people protesting during the presentation of the medal. Of course, I'm not claiming he was 1% as bad as Milosevic, but he was guilty.
It was convenient for the new Serbian government, as well as the US and allies, to get Milosevic convicted and not by a Serbian court, because of course the new government was very unpopular. That's the reason he got convicted in Amsterdam. Similar stories apply to all cases.
Except, of course, the Israeli case. That's the UN GA pushing to convict the leader of Israel. The ICC changed it's own rules TWICE to convict him (that was necessary because the case satisfies neither the territorial requirements nor the procedural rules of the ICC about who is allowed to bring cases) ... and it still went nowhere. That's why the comparison is made to the Dreyfus affair. Jewish "leader" goes free, French law was "changed" DURING the court case to convict him anyway. Note: in theory the law was not changed, the prosecution just openly admitted they were going to use different rules (NOT from the law) to convict him. Which is somewhat comparable to what the ICC did. Even though Netanyahu is milking it and of course he IS responsible to some extent.
Iranian, Sudanese, Myanmarese, Colombian, ... leaders get excused, half because they're still in power, the other half because governments don't want to be "humiliated" in Amsterdam. Arguably even the Netherlands and the UN itself (Tom Karremans was UN commander) interfered in a case to avoid humiliation, as specified above.
And given that that what usually happens at the ICC, I wonder what the point is. I love the idea of the ICC. But under the territorial limitations, and procedural rules, what's the point? For Milosevic it's perhaps great that he's convicted, as opposed to not convicted, but it would have been 100x better if he was convicted in Belgrade instead of Amsterdam.
Which is double bad, because Milosevic DID have the choice to keep fighting and it would have destroyed many more lives than he already did. He didn't. He eventually made the right choice, if you can stomach putting it like that. Which means this situation won't repeat. If, for example, if Iran's ayatollah, Khamenei junior has any say in the matter, Iran will fight to the death. Because if they don't he'll personally either be killed or locked up for life. Which means the only option for regime change in Iran is now fighting through the IRGC and executing Khamenei junior directly.
But the ICC will never convict Putin, unless they get the support from the Russian government. No Iranian or Hezbollah or Syrian or Chinese or North Korean or ... commander will ever be convicted there.
So sad to see that the Israel of Yitzhak Rabin only exists in traces anymore. He was not perfect, but after Peres it mostly went downhill... Ehud Olmert comes to mind as a positive influence in Israeli politics though.
Thank you for speaking up, the political leadership indeed is a shame and it's important for citizens to speak out and let the world know that these blood-hungry bastards do not represent their citizens.
“The International Criminal Court (ICC) is an intergovernmental organisation and international tribunal seated in The Hague, Netherlands. Established in 2002
[…]
The establishment of an international tribunal to judge political leaders accused of international crimes was first proposed during the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 following the First World War”
when israel and america both went on their insane run through gaza, venezuela and iran, the second thing i thought after feeling sorry for those people, was feeling sorry for israelis and americans. its going to be a rough ride getting out of this for both nations' people.
edit: and indeed the west in general, that has largely said and done nothing while watching events unfold.
Moshe Feiglin (Former Knesset Member): In May 2025, former Likud MP Moshe Feiglin sparked widespread international outrage during a live interview on Israeli TV Channel 14. He explicitly stated, "Every child, every baby in Gaza is an enemy"
Michal Waldiger (Knesset Member): Also in May 2025, during a heated parliamentary session, Religious Zionist Party MK Michal Waldiger responded to a speech condemning the deaths of children by stating, "Yes, they will also have to kill them, because there is no choice," later adding that they are "all enemies like the Nazis"
Nissim Vaturi (Deputy Speaker of the Knesset): In January 2024, Vaturi claimed on the Knesset Channel that "any child" born in Gaza is "already a terrorist" from the moment of birth
For every single person killed in the tragic attack on Israel in October, Israel has killed 64 children[0] (so far). To some people(including here, this argument keeps erupting all the time) this is a completely normal and acceptable trade off. People keep bringing up civilian casualties in Germany and Japan as if we can bend our morality this way. The number speaks for themselves.
I think your comment is more ambiguous than you realise. Who is the "them" at the end of your sentence?
Some would argue that Hamas continues to exist because no one has prosecutes its members.
Some would argue that Hamas exists because no one prosecutes those in the Israeli government (the "them" of the parent comment) who persecute Palestinians in a way that is bound to cultivate terrorism.
It's really sad seeing the international order, erected primarily by the US as a driving force after WW2, now being torn down by the current US administration to the detriment not only of global safety but also the US itself.
Giving up the best soft-power levers they had in an attempt to replace them with coarse, obvious and ineffective hard-power beat-sticks is not only foolish but history shows never works well or long term.
How is that "rules for thee and not for me" of they didn't sign up and didn't want the ICC to have any jurisdiction for unsigned states (including for other countries)
Keep in mind that the US has never joined the ICC. China, Russia, India and, in fact, a large portion of the world (including the Arab world) aren't part of it.
The ICC, irrespective of its merits, represents a somewhat narrow point of view.
Which country besides the US has the audacity to think it has extraterritorial rights to interfere with legal practices elsewhere? To me, it is obvious that this is violent behavior and will lead to defensive action by others, and more violence, not more peace.
If it was the “hard power” it claims, what is it that makes “it” so afraid? To me, it is fairly obvious that this is how a threatened being behaves, in “childish ways”, before it fully falls apart.
You may not have intended it this way, but your top paragraph could easily be repurposed as a talking point for the current administration. What does the I in ICC stand for?
The ICC itself and its member states believe they have extraterritorial rights to interfere with legal practices elsewhere, which is sort of the whole point.
The ICC claims rights in territories where the sovereign power in that territory has signed and incorporated a treaty that grants those rights. ICC jurisdiction is domestic law.
The US has really degenerated into a strongman state hasn’t it? This is more like what they tell us to expect from China, but what we actually get from the US.
Which goes to show that China under Xi is probably the best "super power" enemy the US could ever hope for. What happens after Xi is anyone's get but I doubt it will be so benign.
There's been a lot of stuff bringing us back to the 2002-2008 era, with the occupation of Afghanistan, etc., now that the Brits are finally investigating the SAS men who murdered people in their beds etc., so I've been reading about the old El-Masri case and the CIA black sites in Europe, and the use of state secrets privilege to block El-Masri's lawsuit in the US, the Polish unwillingness to seriously investigate.
The only two good things are I think the ECtHR's willingness to demand an investigation, and one can question whether the CoM of the CoE have done their job in ensuring implementation, but they're at least regularly checking whether there are implementation attempts.
But what struck me was the endless deference of the ICC. They've limited their Afghanistan investigation to Afghani perpetrators even though they have access to vast numbers of Europeans with information about the black sites and the investigation of these things is even more tractable than investigating things in Afghanistan, and I think it's this deference that is the ICC's problem.
The ICC actually has powers sufficient to deal with the sanctions completely, with no need for aid from European states in any regard.
It's to the point where anyone participating in anything affecting the ICC's ability to do its job can be ordered arrested and confined indefinitely. The ICC can literally order the arrest of the workforce of an entire bank if it participates in anything having to do with retaliation against the ICC. The only thing preventing milder things like ordering the arrest of the CEO and board is the ICC's insane deference. They can also apply these things to the American political leadership who have passed the sanctions.
So I really don't understand the Americans. The ICC is doing exactly what they want. They're not even subpoenaing Europeans who sit right here with knowledge about the black sites and torture, even under intense criticism from victims who are of course pushing for investigation.
The article really misunderstand what sort of powers the ICC has. The ICC doesn't need the blocking statute to end enforcement of sanctions, they can order the arrest and indefinite detainment of anyone participating in retaliation against the court.
I think it's something to do with them issueing an arrest warrant in November 2024 for Netanyahu for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity as part of the ICC investigation in Palestine.
They are concerned that they will be the target for war crimes, such as sinking fishing ships in the Caribbean and Pacific, targeting civilian infrastructure in Iran, and the like.
Because both T & N that have utter disrespect for law & order when it affects themselves. For example: both have to remain in political power as this immunity from law shields them from running trials that would probably end them in prison.
Trump, a.k.a. Evil President Camacho, is not the only one. Even Bill Clinton, which I, as a conservative, consider the last US real stateman, was more interested in neutering the ICC than really joining it.
Because Trump's best bro, Putin, and his good friends in the Israeli government find themselves inconvenienced by it.
The US isn't subject to it, as it didn't sign up, but he's probably also worried that Americans who are accused of war crimes and then travel to countries which are signatories may find themselves arrested and tried.
Oh it's definitely a threat, and the damage is not potential but factual already. Consider 120+ children dead in a single airstrike on a school in Iran, or the current gasoline prices worldwide as a result of the unprovoked war they started. People killed, world economy damage, plus the damage to international alliances, institutions, and the rule of law. Just quick 3 examples of the actual damage, and that's only this year!
It's better that they rip the badaid off like this. The EU cannot stand by if all of the ICC is hit. It's gonna be painful for all of us in Europe for a little while, but this is far better than letting any more single individuals have their lives ruined for doing their (legal!) jobs for European institutions. This has already happened too many times, and is truly shameful – let this conflict rage for real now, so that it's a burden we all have to bear together!
Fully agree. EU needs to get their act together and start getting independent. It's absurd that I cannot pay cashless without using American companies. Or that people lose their bank account because someone in America does something.
Edit: They also need to force banks to make a decision. Do you want to do business in the EU? Then you must not close accounts bank accounts because someone in US puts someone on a list. If that means you lose business in the US, so be it. Make a decision which market you want to operate in. If you want to leave EU, do it. Others will take your place.
> It's absurd that I cannot pay cashless without using American companies
The infrastructure for it exists with instant SEPA transfers, and Wero is slowly developing into a useful system for retail payments, but without the EU mandating that banks and retailers must support it alongside Visa it will take a while for meaningful penetration to happen.
Yeah, it's good that it is progressing. But my hopes are really on the digital Euro. I hope the EU doesn't fall for the lobbying against it by the (Wero) banks.
If both houses switch then he will be distracted fighting them for the rest of his term; if they don't we no longer need to treat the US as a functioning democracy.
And then what? Things will magically go back to the way they were? I doubt it. The US has seriously damaged its international reputation. It has burned bridges. It has started literal wars. Removing the Orange Danger would be a good start, but it will by no means by the end the problem.
Exactly. Trump isn't the problem. Trump is a symptom. I'm far more terrified that the US will sigh and go "puh, glad that's over and will never again be a problem" than I am of Trump.
The problem is that the EU is not a country, it is a bloc. Each member state is a sovereign nation.
It is up to each member state to decide how to respond to an increasingly hostile US.
Which is why foreign actors such as US and Russia always seem to undermine the EU and foment dissent in the bloc. A unified Europe would be much harder to push around.
This will further push the EU towards sovereignty, not just on a tech front but through the financial sector. Similar to their sanctions of the Iranian airlines - these are attacks on civilian and human rights infrastructure that other countries actually find value and alignment with.
Probably (hopefully) we'll look back on this as the start of the end of US soft influence.
> "The Trump Administration has been clear: the International Criminal Court is a corrupt and fatally politicized supranational court that has maliciously abused its authority and exceeded its mandate," Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement.
I've never really thought about the ICC at all other than just knowing that the few countries that possess both hard power (military) and soft power (economic) have refused to join or recognize the ICC since its inception in 2002.
Why would China and USA both not recognize it? It seems like they're the only ones that really matter.
I'll preface it with the only part of the US argument against the ICC that is somewhat principled and reasonable: there is some concern that it'd be used for political prosecution of US service members or decision makers outside of constitutional guarantees like a jury trial
I don't think it actually would happen if it joined but since it's the US I can also imagine someone being pushed to (or doing it for some personal fame) to bend the procedural rules to at least launch an investigation that wouldn't generally be launched if the facts were the same in another western country.
That being said, their accusations towards the ICC as it has operated so far (as opposed to why they don't join) are mostly pretextual and right now they're mostly motivated by their alliance with Israel which is being investigated over Gaza
They don’t recognize it because they don’t have to. Why would you voluntarily agree to be bound by laws and subject to a court system if you have the option to just say you didn’t want to?
Just a reminder: the ICC was founded in the aftermath of WWII, when Jews had no voice and no one fighting for them.
Israel’s finance minister, one of the most senior ministers in the government:
“No one in the world will allow us to starve two million civilians to death, even though it may be justified and moral, until our hostages are returned.”
Israel’s defense minister:
“I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel. Everything is closed. We are fighting human animals, and we are acting accordingly.”
Someone should prosecute those bastards.
Funny how other people involved who also committed "international crimes" got let of. For example, in the Yugoslav war, at the Srebrenica massacre the leader of the UN forces, a Dutch commander by the name of Tom Karremans, tasked with preventing what happened not only committed war crimes with his forces, but also obviously let the situation escalate. He was given a medal by the Queen of the Netherlands, about 5km from the ICC building. Obviously there were people protesting during the presentation of the medal. Of course, I'm not claiming he was 1% as bad as Milosevic, but he was guilty.
It was convenient for the new Serbian government, as well as the US and allies, to get Milosevic convicted and not by a Serbian court, because of course the new government was very unpopular. That's the reason he got convicted in Amsterdam. Similar stories apply to all cases.
Except, of course, the Israeli case. That's the UN GA pushing to convict the leader of Israel. The ICC changed it's own rules TWICE to convict him (that was necessary because the case satisfies neither the territorial requirements nor the procedural rules of the ICC about who is allowed to bring cases) ... and it still went nowhere. That's why the comparison is made to the Dreyfus affair. Jewish "leader" goes free, French law was "changed" DURING the court case to convict him anyway. Note: in theory the law was not changed, the prosecution just openly admitted they were going to use different rules (NOT from the law) to convict him. Which is somewhat comparable to what the ICC did. Even though Netanyahu is milking it and of course he IS responsible to some extent.
Iranian, Sudanese, Myanmarese, Colombian, ... leaders get excused, half because they're still in power, the other half because governments don't want to be "humiliated" in Amsterdam. Arguably even the Netherlands and the UN itself (Tom Karremans was UN commander) interfered in a case to avoid humiliation, as specified above.
And given that that what usually happens at the ICC, I wonder what the point is. I love the idea of the ICC. But under the territorial limitations, and procedural rules, what's the point? For Milosevic it's perhaps great that he's convicted, as opposed to not convicted, but it would have been 100x better if he was convicted in Belgrade instead of Amsterdam.
Which is double bad, because Milosevic DID have the choice to keep fighting and it would have destroyed many more lives than he already did. He didn't. He eventually made the right choice, if you can stomach putting it like that. Which means this situation won't repeat. If, for example, if Iran's ayatollah, Khamenei junior has any say in the matter, Iran will fight to the death. Because if they don't he'll personally either be killed or locked up for life. Which means the only option for regime change in Iran is now fighting through the IRGC and executing Khamenei junior directly.
But the ICC will never convict Putin, unless they get the support from the Russian government. No Iranian or Hezbollah or Syrian or Chinese or North Korean or ... commander will ever be convicted there.
I don’t think that’s correct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court:
“The International Criminal Court (ICC) is an intergovernmental organisation and international tribunal seated in The Hague, Netherlands. Established in 2002
[…]
The establishment of an international tribunal to judge political leaders accused of international crimes was first proposed during the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 following the First World War”
edit: and indeed the west in general, that has largely said and done nothing while watching events unfold.
Michal Waldiger (Knesset Member): Also in May 2025, during a heated parliamentary session, Religious Zionist Party MK Michal Waldiger responded to a speech condemning the deaths of children by stating, "Yes, they will also have to kill them, because there is no choice," later adding that they are "all enemies like the Nazis"
Nissim Vaturi (Deputy Speaker of the Knesset): In January 2024, Vaturi claimed on the Knesset Channel that "any child" born in Gaza is "already a terrorist" from the moment of birth
For every single person killed in the tragic attack on Israel in October, Israel has killed 64 children[0] (so far). To some people(including here, this argument keeps erupting all the time) this is a completely normal and acceptable trade off. People keep bringing up civilian casualties in Germany and Japan as if we can bend our morality this way. The number speaks for themselves.
[0] https://www.unicefusa.org/stories/more-50000-children-killed...
Some would argue that Hamas continues to exist because no one has prosecutes its members.
Some would argue that Hamas exists because no one prosecutes those in the Israeli government (the "them" of the parent comment) who persecute Palestinians in a way that is bound to cultivate terrorism.
Giving up the best soft-power levers they had in an attempt to replace them with coarse, obvious and ineffective hard-power beat-sticks is not only foolish but history shows never works well or long term.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members'_Prot...?
The ICC, irrespective of its merits, represents a somewhat narrow point of view.
With the US' war of aggression on Iran, it just doesnt care what it loses in its quest to support Israel.
If it was the “hard power” it claims, what is it that makes “it” so afraid? To me, it is fairly obvious that this is how a threatened being behaves, in “childish ways”, before it fully falls apart.
and several others in UK
The US is sanctioning a foreign court over actions that do not even involve the US itself. There is no comparison here.
The only two good things are I think the ECtHR's willingness to demand an investigation, and one can question whether the CoM of the CoE have done their job in ensuring implementation, but they're at least regularly checking whether there are implementation attempts.
But what struck me was the endless deference of the ICC. They've limited their Afghanistan investigation to Afghani perpetrators even though they have access to vast numbers of Europeans with information about the black sites and the investigation of these things is even more tractable than investigating things in Afghanistan, and I think it's this deference that is the ICC's problem.
The ICC actually has powers sufficient to deal with the sanctions completely, with no need for aid from European states in any regard.
It's to the point where anyone participating in anything affecting the ICC's ability to do its job can be ordered arrested and confined indefinitely. The ICC can literally order the arrest of the workforce of an entire bank if it participates in anything having to do with retaliation against the ICC. The only thing preventing milder things like ordering the arrest of the CEO and board is the ICC's insane deference. They can also apply these things to the American political leadership who have passed the sanctions.
So I really don't understand the Americans. The ICC is doing exactly what they want. They're not even subpoenaing Europeans who sit right here with knowledge about the black sites and torture, even under intense criticism from victims who are of course pushing for investigation.
The article really misunderstand what sort of powers the ICC has. The ICC doesn't need the blocking statute to end enforcement of sanctions, they can order the arrest and indefinite detainment of anyone participating in retaliation against the court.
Bush, Obama and Biden wanted to keep the US out of it. Trump wants to destroy it.
- they issued a non-revocable arrest warrant for Netanyahu
- Afghanistan is a member and once threatened to prosecute US military staff for human rights violations.
Its not just the Trump adminstration, the "Hague Invasion Act" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...) was signed into American law in 2002 by G.W. Bush.
Impunity is a drug.
The US isn't subject to it, as it didn't sign up, but he's probably also worried that Americans who are accused of war crimes and then travel to countries which are signatories may find themselves arrested and tried.
American citizens are subject to ICC jurisdiction if they commit crimes in an ICC-member country. Like US soldiers in Afghanistan.
Which is what freaks the US government out.
id say it is harmful. like a cancerous tumor that now went into hypergrowth
Edit: They also need to force banks to make a decision. Do you want to do business in the EU? Then you must not close accounts bank accounts because someone in US puts someone on a list. If that means you lose business in the US, so be it. Make a decision which market you want to operate in. If you want to leave EU, do it. Others will take your place.
The infrastructure for it exists with instant SEPA transfers, and Wero is slowly developing into a useful system for retail payments, but without the EU mandating that banks and retailers must support it alongside Visa it will take a while for meaningful penetration to happen.
It is up to each member state to decide how to respond to an increasingly hostile US.
Which is why foreign actors such as US and Russia always seem to undermine the EU and foment dissent in the bloc. A unified Europe would be much harder to push around.
Probably (hopefully) we'll look back on this as the start of the end of US soft influence.
I've never really thought about the ICC at all other than just knowing that the few countries that possess both hard power (military) and soft power (economic) have refused to join or recognize the ICC since its inception in 2002.
Why would China and USA both not recognize it? It seems like they're the only ones that really matter.
I don't think it actually would happen if it joined but since it's the US I can also imagine someone being pushed to (or doing it for some personal fame) to bend the procedural rules to at least launch an investigation that wouldn't generally be launched if the facts were the same in another western country.
That being said, their accusations towards the ICC as it has operated so far (as opposed to why they don't join) are mostly pretextual and right now they're mostly motivated by their alliance with Israel which is being investigated over Gaza