Hacker News Reader

Comment by anon291 | Hacker News Reader

That is totally fine that those countries agreed to it. The United States did not though. So any foreign court that attempts to prosecute Americans for how Americans act on American soil or in American jurisdiction (for example, by attempting to indict Americans carrying out the legal business of the United States), is a violation of American sovereignty.

View on HN

Originally that list included Israel, the US, and Russia, who supported the establishment of the court but subsequently withdrew when they perceived that being member states would constrain their strategic ambitions.

reality is more complciated than the simplistic characterization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Internat...

It's very clear that there's a tension between soveriegnty and accountability at work here, with the US seeking to both have its cake and eat it. Many of the objections to the Treaty of Rome stated by US commentators are equally applicable to the Nuremberg tribunals post WW2, for example.

The Nuremberg trials were war trials after we won a war. If the ice is claiming authority because they are in a war then they deserve more than sanctions.

Nobody disputes that. But e.g. war crimes are not legal in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Crimes_Act_of_1996. So if the ICC persecutes war criminals, as it does, they're not stepping on the US' authority.

Also, the jurisdiction of the US does not extend beyond its territory, except in case of war.

The US is a country so its jurisdiction extends wherever its armed forces are willing to enforce it

Reply on news.ycombinator.com