Hacker News Reader

Comment by 47282847 | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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?

If that's a talking point it's a stupid one. The Rome Statutes are only valid in territories that have agreed to be bound by them.

It isn't bound, Hamas didn't agree to be bound by ICC.

And the local drug dealer says he's a sovcit but is still somehow in jail. What's your point?

But the equivalent don't hold there is no one enforcing ICC warrants in Gaza and Yahya Sinwar wasn't in jail.

Counter point: ICC enforces laws within its members territories.

Don't like it, don't do genocide or dont visit its member countries.

The PRC.

Where?

It's more low key than America but they set up secret police stations to keep an eye on Chinese communities all over the world. Officially they only help investigate crimes against their citizens but they also harass and spy on known political opponents.

In 2021 they ran a campaign that forced over 200k overseas Chinese to return to the mainland or risk punishment against their family: https://safeguarddefenders.com/en/blog/110-overseas-230000-c...

Manchester https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63972640

and several others in UK

This directly involves Chinese citizens and the Chinese consulate, and diplomatic immunity exists everywhere.

The US is sanctioning a foreign court over actions that do not even involve the US itself. There is no comparison here.

The PRC is strongarming educational institutions. Look up the Drew Pavlou case at Queensland University. There are similar reports from New Zealand, Canada and the UK.

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 ICC is issuing warrants against non-members. In fact, the issuance of the warrants against the Israelis even violates the ICCs own rules and precedent: https://www.timesofisrael.com/appealing-icc-arrest-warrants-...

And then there’s the whole bit about the ICC prosecutor who issued the warrants (Khan) issuing them as an attempt blackmail a fellow Muslim ICC employee who he was raping into keeping silent with “think of the Palestinian arrest warrants”: https://archive.is/YrxUF

Any country is free to issue warrants, and enforce them on their own territory. Any country is free to enforce other countries warrants on their territories or not. That’s what mutual legal assistance treaties are for.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com