The International Criminal Court Will Now Prosecute Cyberwar Crimes | Hacker News Reader

The International Criminal Court Will Now Prosecute Cyberwar Crimes

wired.com

10 pointswolverine87615 comments

I put the article through Kagis Universal summerizer:

>The International Criminal Court's chief prosecutor recently stated that the ICC will now investigate cybercrimes that violate international law, such as cyberattacks on civilian infrastructure. This comes amid Russia's cyberattacks on Ukraine's power grid and other systems. The prosecutor did not mention Russia, but the first case may involve Russia's cyberattacks on Ukraine. Prosecuting such cybercrimes could establish an important precedent and also pursue charges against higher-level Russian officials. If prosecuted, the ICC cases could have broader impact than U.S. cases as its jurisdiction covers more countries.

I am curious from a constitution law point of view, does a ruling in ICC supersede or sets a precedent in state or federal case? For example, if a ICC or US Federal Court rules synthetic art generated by LLM or Diffusion Models are not copyright able or code is speech protected by bill of rights does it mean ICC can interpret from that in a broad/narrow scope or vice versa as they do in our judicial system?

Not sure why you're talking about US law here. USA doesn't even recognise ICC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Internat...

As others have said, the US doesn't even recognize the ICC.

If it did, the ICC is not a higher court - it's not in a judicial hierarchy. It's an independent agency created to prosecute war crimes and similar behavior. (The following is my impressions; hopefully someone knows the specifics.)

If a dictatorial government leader commits war crimes, who prosecutes them and under what law? Unless they lose the war, the victims can't prosecute. Unless they lose power, their own country won't (and even if they do, they often walk away free). Third party countries have little motive or standing - there was no crime commited in their jurisdiction (though universal jurisdiction now addresses that to some degree). The tyrants could commit horrors with impunity.

The ICC presents some real deterrence: Maybe you can get away with the war crimes today, but someone is watching and may arrest and prosecute you later. Maybe it's better to fight the war sufficiently adhering to international law on warfare (e.g., the Geneva Conventions), and avoid that risk.

The US does not recognize the ICC, so its courts probably wouldn't really care about any precedents set by the ICC. Likely the same the other way around.

The Rome Statute limits the "Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court".

https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/...

I would guess that it would be unlikely for any ICC case to have significant standing in any American courthouse. The US is no longer a signatory to the Rome Statute which was the treaty which established the ICC and I don’t believe there is any interest in being bound to their rulings.

India, Russia, China, US don’t care about the ICC, so what’s the point?

Seems to be another waste of EU taxpayers’ money.

Yet the ICC prosecutes and convicts people, even without those countries.

Right. So they can target smaller countries. Big deal.

Didn’t the US threaten The Hague with an invasion over the ICC?

> So they can target smaller countries. Big deal.

It's a very big deal to the victims and potential victims. Their experiences don't vary based on the size of the country.

> Didn’t the US threaten The Hague with an invasion over the ICC?

https://scholar.harvard.edu/ksikkink/blog/%E2%80%9Cinvade-ha...

Because 123 countries do care.

Which limits the ability of the leaders of India, Russia etc to attend international events if they know that the hosting country will arrest them. Case in point: Putin unable to attend BRICs event in South Africa.

He’s not coming to the G20 in India either so that logic doesn’t fly.

China isn't attending G20 either so there are likely other reasons.

But Putin did attend BRICs remotely indicating that inability to travel was the reason.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com