Hacker News Reader

Comment by kccqzy | Hacker News Reader

No. I’m not saying all international treaties and bodies shouldn’t exist. That’s a wild misinterpretation of what I said. I said that international treaties that establish a supranational court system should not exist. The emphasis is on court system. Conflicts between countries on anything including crimes should ideally be dealt with using diplomatic means, not a court trial. That’s why the United Nations Security Council works. It’s not a court.

View on HN

That's an arbitrary statement to make ("I believe international treaties and bodies should exist, but make an exception for criminal courts"). I believe that criminal courts should matter even more than non-criminal courts such as the UNCLOS' court, mostly because even centuries ago, treaties related to war crimes have always been seen as a bigger priority for most empires and nations than other types of treaties have been. The ICC is our best way to enforce treaties like the Geneva Conventions.

The ICC is overwhelmingly popular with most countries and people, most people who oppose it are those from countries which harbor war criminals and try to make their opposition look like it stems from legal issues with international jurisdiction, and not the truth which is to protect their country's ability to commit war crimes unabated.

> The ICC is overwhelmingly popular with most countries and people, most people who oppose it are those from countries which harbor war criminals

We don’t have good enough contemporary global polling to confidently say that a majority personally supports the ICC.

However, I suspect you’re right that most people probably support the idea of the ICC but countries choose not to be part for a variety of reasons, other that “harboring war criminals”.

The following countries are not party to the Rome Statute, which is what established the ICC:

United States, China, Russia, India, Israel, Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc.

> international treaties that establish a supranational court system should not exist

ICJ and ECJ seem fine. I agree that the ICC is toothless (unless it’s investigating Africa for some reason). But if countries agree to its jurisdiction that’s basically glorified arbitration. The Philippine with Duterte show the benefits to a population to submitting to jurisdiction. I bet a lot of Americans being abused by ICE wish we had a check on our political leaders outside our own legal system.

The ECJ is very much not fine.

> ECJ is very much not fine

Sure. You know what, I don't know enough about it to argue if it is. What I can say is it isn't toothless. International treaties can create robust judicial systems.

> That’s why the United Nations Security Council works.

Saying the security council works is... A perspective.

During the general assembly there were plenty of comments as to how it's not representative at all. There are 5 members with veto power (us, Russia, uk, France, china), why these? Because they won the WW2? The whole southern hemisphere doesn't hold veto power.

The security council works very well, if you're one of the 5 permanent members.

Isn't this just another diplomatic mean? The ICC can't enforce anything, it's up to countries to care. The only difference between the ICC and the Someonebaggy Criminal Court is that the governments of places like France care slightly about what the ICC says.

> international treaties that establish a supranational court system should not exist

The first "supranational" court system was created with the USA fully on-board: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremburg_trials

In fact, they liked it so much that they re-enacted it at home: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsequent_Nuremberg_trials

Does it work, though? What is the standard for "works" here?

Wide participation by nations, even at the expense of occasional failure for the nations to reach a consensus.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com