Can't think of a more flagrant and succinct declaration that the US believes itself "above the law."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members'_Prot...
The USA isn't a party to the Rome Statute, and above and beyond that, reactively passed domestic legislation to thwart any attempt to prosecute crimes committed by its military, including in countries that are party to the Rome Statute -- more than 20 years ago. This is not a recent phenomenon.
You know what else is more than 20 years ago? Americans committing war crimes in other countries:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisone...
Remember?
The USA, as a country, doesn't want to be held to account by other countries. As it outspends all the other militaries on the planet, it continues to get away with its crimes.
For example, if you were to accidentally sever a cable car cable through your negligence, killing 20 people... that's manslaughter, and you'd face a lengthy prison sentence.
Actual sentence when US military personnel do it: nothing. Whisked safely back to the US and ultimately just dismissed from service. No prison.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Cavalese_cable_car_crash
US military personnel tortured Iraqis, physically abused them, raped them, sexually humiliated them, killed them and desecrated their bodies. Punishment: whisked to safety in the US, though at least some perpetrators saw US prison time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisone...
The US military illegally abducts people and breaks the laws and protections afforded to citizens in other countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition
...including completely innocent people who the US doesn't even want, they just fuck up and abduct the wrong person by mistake, and take years to accept they fucked up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri
Let's not forget the US military child rapists in Okinawa (though at least in these cases, the Japanese actually got to enact justice on the guilty parties and they served prison sentences in Japan)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Okinawa_rape_incident
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/57562
> On September 4, 1995, three U.S. servicemen - who were stationed at Camp Hansen on Okinawa - rented a van and kidnapped a 12-year-old local girl. They drove her to a secluded beach, and raped her. The three servicemen were convicted for the crime in a Japanese court and served their sentences in Japan. This incident led to mass protests and increased debate over the continued presence of U.S. forces in Japan, especially on the island of Okinawa. While the three US servicemen were awaiting trial, they were held in pretrial confinement on the U.S. military base as part of the status of forces agreement (SOFA). The fact that they were not being held in the local jail particularly angered many Okinawan citizens who saw this treatment as unfair
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21583785
> Two US sailors have pleaded guilty to the rape of a Japanese woman in Okinawa [...] The incident, in October 2012, exacerbated resentment over the US military presence on the island.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpwwdyye4vgo
> A US soldier has been charged with the kidnapping and rape of a teenage girl in Okinawa, [...] The latest allegation also involves a minor, who is younger than 16, the age of consent in Japan.
And fuck it, even the wife of a spy who drives on the wrong side of the road and kills a man -- whisk her to safety, no punishment. If there were any justice in this world, she'd be in a UK prison for causing death by dangerous driving.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Harry_Dunn
The US military gets away with these crimes because other countries aren't strong enough to punish it and hold it to account. I hope, one day, they are.
when the ICC has never been able to do anything meaningful to any American administration.
Whenever the ICC has moved close to scrutinizing the U.S. or its close allies, Washington has retaliated with severe consequences.
This isn’t a new phenomenon limited to the Trump administration.
What would you think of an agreement by ten guys that they'll work together to beat you up if they decide you're a "bad actor"? Is it somehow solemn and respectable merely because they came to an agreement? Even if you don't agree their self-declaration should give them power over you?
I think the way you've presented things is misleading. International relations is literally anarchy, and different groups have different points of view. Mere collaboration is only that.
It's literally the state of things: "there is no hierarchically superior, coercive power that can resolve disputes, enforce law, or order the system of international politics. In international relations, anarchy is widely accepted as the starting point for international relations theory." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_(international_relatio...).
If you know of such an authority, please point it out. The UN is not it.
Anarchy doesn't mean constant conflict or power politics or anything like that.
That is indeed true that the Cold War politicking reduced the UN to its current role from what it was originally meant for. UNGC resolutions of course were meant to be more comprehensive and more binding, with the UNSC being used to enforce the resolutions. Which is of course why the Four Policemen + France insisted upon veto power as a prerequisite of them joining the club.
RE: there not being any coercive power that can enforce laws and such, that is of course true in the sense that there is no universal power for that. However, institutions with such power do exist, at least in a smaller scale.
Let's for example take the EU and its relation to Orbán's Hungary. The European Union was explicitly removing Hungary's access to EU funds as a coercive measure to punish Hungary for its democratic backsliding and as a way to enforce its membership terms, that Hungary had agreed to when ascending to the bloc. And that's why reforms (and promises of reforms) by the still fairly recent government of Magyar Péter are a prerequisite for Hungary to get access to the funds that got frozen.
Also, NATO exists, which can also be used as an avenue for resolving disputes between its member states. See also the 1974 Cyprus coup d'état, the subsequent Turkish invasion of Cyprus and the collapse of the Greek junta afterwards. The Organization of American States was used as a vehicle for resolving the Football War between Honduras and El Salvador with political and economic pressure, etc. And for a more historical example, both the Comecon and the Warsaw Pact had major Soviet coercion, although to be fair, other member states did also have some breathing room as long as they didn't step out of line too much.
---
Also, your own Wikipedia link also says that not all IR theory takes anarchy between states as a given, mainly in that the liberal doctrine doesn't assume such, unlike for example realism, which I alluded to.
The ICC is 125 guys agreeing with each other that if one of them does bad things the others will hold them accountable.
It's not random people asking strangers to follow their rules.
It condemned Putin for crimes committed in Ukraine, which is a member.
FWIW, that's not how the ICC works, any more than your national legal system is "ten guys working together to beat you up if they don't like you."
The point was the ten guys are self-appointed and have no connection to any legitimate higher authority that you recognize. Which is a akin to the US' relation to the UCC, given it's not ratified the treaty.
My "national legal system" is a higher authority (than me), which I recognize as legitimate, and in any case have no power to resist.
I'm sure you can see the problem with your own argument.
Which is?
The US doesn't recognize the ICC as legitimate, and has the power to resist.
USA sovereignty is not at issue, it's who now holds it as your democracy has failed, and will a future sovereign demos choose to apply this moral law to those within it's sovereign estate.
Seems like that changed a little in the last decade. Hopefully it's not forever, but who knows.
that's the whole thing, the US doesn't agree with that assessment.
People forget, that a war crime is simply a crime that (state) combatants dont have immunity for in war. The geneva convention gives immunity for everything that is not a war crime.
they dont like the specific court, and more generally they dont like when the rule of law applies to them and their allies instead of just enemies. But they do recognize all these things as crime
Google League of Nations
We're repeating old social tropes the 50+ year old leadership lived through.
It's sad and pathetic. The youth reliance on old leadership and putting that on them is elder abuse. McConnell and Feinstein handlers should be prosecuted for such.
This is 100% on lazy, low-skilled, younger American public that doesn't need Depends expecting better from the generation glazing over live on TV and vanishing from office only to be found months later in an institution
The censored for TV era propped such olds up on screen for decades and refused to challenge their speculations and bullshit; everyone actually believes the elders are cogent and capable but they never were. Just puppets of a bygone era of televised circuses beamed to the Wonder Bread eating masses
People like Trump and Hegseth have been saying that very explicitly in at least the past couple years
I don't like it, but I'm not signing up to do anything about it, and I'm not going to sign my kids up for it either.
Not need for extra sanctions because of Geneva violations
I'm not holding my breath for Russia to be prosecuted, for starters because they're one of the countries that don't recognize it
The only people that get prosecuted by the ICC are people that lose wars (no winner has ever been prosecuted) and are also from nations that do not have nuclear weapons / nuclear protection.
If you're talking about invading and occupying the people, every person is still theoretically under the law of whatever country they are in by default.
It's another thing to say: "We will dismantle it if it goes after Americans".
It's also extremely hypocritical since Rubio himself co-sponsored a resolution backing the court's jurisdiction over Russians accused of war crimes.
So it's really more like: "If it says things we agree with, we will be on board. If it says things we disagree with, not only will we not be on board, we will erase the whole thing".
In general any idea that international law is relevant except as a tool for the West to provide moral justification for its actions when it's convenient to do so is naive. At least the Trump administration being more vulgar and crude in expressing its disregard for international law compared to previous administrations may open more people's eyes.
> Can't think of a more flagrant and succinct declaration that the US believes itself "above the law."
So would you think of yourself "above the law" if you refused to submit to my law?
Apparently the US never ratified the ICC treaty. International relations is literally an anarchy, there's no "higher authority" to impose law. Countries can only voluntarily submit to a treaty, or be violently coerced by another country.
https://usunrome.usmission.gov/why-were-dismantling-the-icc/
I don't think you understand the concept of "sovereignty"
As in, they would have forgiven themselves and punished international courts who tried to prosecute them.
but it would probably an an entertaining novel.
It makes sense if you think about them wanting to ethnically cleanse Jewish people out of Germany.
"making an agreement with Zionists did not make Hitler a supporter of Zionism any more than the Nazi–Soviet pact made him a supporter of communism."[33]
And the Nazis wouldn't have lasted long, anyway.
one or two? this has been standing us law since the bush era.
The US has very large problems far beyond one or two politicians.
Trump has been in office for 6 years. Because 2/3 of America either voted him in or didn't bother showing up. I've been reading people say "he's unpopular" for a decade. But America voted him in again, this time with more power than he's ever had before.
There is no way to decouple his legacy from America anymore. You would have to have a blowout midterm with a Senate supermajority that can roll back everything he's done.