> The merits of the case are mostly irrelevant because the ICC doesn’t have the authority to enforce any of its judgements. Any country that has one of its citizens (or leaders) convicted by the ICC cannot be compelled to honor the judgement, it can only do so voluntarily
This misunderstands how icc works. Generally the accused has to be in ICC custody for the case to go forward. Once the accused is in custody, the ICC has all sorts of power over them.
Perhaps you mean arresting people is hard. That is true, but the merit part only cones after that part.
> Which is why it’s pretty much only ever been used to prosecute WWII losers, Yugoslavian civil war losers
Neither of those were the ICC.
----
You're not entirely wrong of course. The ICC has trouble enforcing warrants against powerful people from powerful countries.
The US putting a bounty on the head of an internationally-recognized terrorist and leader of a violent non-state actor like Al-Qaeda is nowhere near comparable to an international body putting bounties out for the leaders of sovereign states of millions.
Right, in this hypothetical one bounty target has been convicted of war crimes by an internationally recognized court, and the other is Osama bin Laden.
You’re right about that, The ICC has actually only ever prosecuted Africans (and recently issued a couple of warrants against Russians). But The ICC, The ICTY and the IMT/IMTFE all have essentially the same authority when it comes to enforcing “international law”, which is none at all. International laws aren’t real, there is no international government, international police or international armed forces. All international legal or military actions take place only with the voluntary cooperation of all countries involved. If any country decides to withhold that cooperation on any particular issue, then there is no enforcement mechanism. Which is why all of history’s “international courts” have only ever prosecuted the losers of wars.
> International laws aren’t real, there is no international government, international police or international armed forces
What you are expressing here is essentially a variant of the philosophy known as "legal realism" – laws only exist to the extent they are enforced, so a law lacking a sufficiently effective enforcement mechanism isn't really a law at all.
However, that perspective was rarely heard prior to the 20th century. Historically, international law grew out of the work of early modern European scholars such Grotius. Many of them (Grotius included) were natural law theorists – they saw the law of nations as grounded in human nature, and ultimately established by God. In those days, much of Europe – even in the purely domestic sphere – was still governed by customary law: laws evolved due to custom, whose content was never entirely clear, and which were never perfectly enforced. The continental legal tradition was founded on ancient Roman law, which continued to be studied as a kind of abstract intellectual system in universities long after it had ceased to be enforced in practice – however, rather than an exercise without any practical relevance, lawyers and judges would apply its provisions to every day cases, but only when they could get away with doing so – an attempt whenever they could to impose some neat Roman order on the anarchic mess of royal decrees and Germanic pagan custom. Against that historical background, the idea of international law without any clear lawgiver or law-enforcer made much more sense than it does to you.
The way it works today is the way it’s always worked. Laws have always needed enforcers, and international laws have only ever been enforced by the winners of war against the losers of war. That’s why the Romans enforced egregious reparations against the Carthaginians after the first Punic war (and took many of their men into slavery), which lead to the second Punic war (after which the same thing happened again).
> The way it works today is the way it’s always worked. Laws have always needed enforcers
Again, you are relying on a contested viewpoint in the philosophy of law as if it were obviously true, despite the fact that many people (both historically and today) disagree with it.
It is one thing to argue for a contested philosophical position – but if you are just going to assert it as "obvious" or "self-evident", then you are really just preaching to the choir, you can only ever convince people who already agree with you.
I'm simply stating the facts of history, which your primary criticism of seems to be that they're too realistic. Describing a viewpoint as contested doesn't really mean anything, you are here contesting it, so it's self-evidently contested. That doesn't lend any credibility to what you're saying. Laws without enforcers are just somebody's ideas, and having some esoteric philosophical objection this doesn't change the reality of the situation.
I could issue an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, and hold a trial for him myself. Perhaps I could also contrive some philosophical justification for why this would be a deeply meaningful act, but the reality of daily life would continue without any regard for such a gesture.
> I could issue an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, and hold a trial for him myself.
And it wouldn't be discussed through-out the Internet. It wouldn't be spoken about on CNN and other mainstream media.
It all really comes to this, doesn't it? It all comes to the established belief in the authorities. With enough uncontested claims like yours, the power of ICC would fade. However because of witty responses of skissane, its power grows.
One of the best quotes from the Game of Thrones/A Song of Ice and Fire:
> A King, a priest, a rich man and a sellsword are in a room. Those three man tell the sellsword to kill the other two.
> I'm simply stating the facts of history, which your primary criticism of seems to be that they're too realistic.
No, my criticism is that you are making the category mistake of confusing history with philosophy of law.
Nobody disputes the historical fact that international law has never seen any more than selective enforcement.
The dispute is about what relevance that historical fact has for the ontological status of international law qua law. That's a philosophy of law question, not a history question.
You are also ignoring the historical fact that the vast majority of states prefer to claim compliance with international law (however dubiously) rather than openly defy it. If other states accuse them of violating international law, the standard diplomatic response is to dispute the contents of the law or its application to the facts at hand, not to reject the whole concept of international law. Your nihilism about international law ignores the real historical fact that states at least pretend to believe in it – and a lot of the people who make those decisions on behalf of states (diplomats, bureaucrats, politicians, etc) aren't just pretending to believe in it, they really actually do. This is a real historical and contemporary phenomenon your theory can't explain.
> I could issue an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, and hold a trial for him myself.
There is an obvious difference – nobody with any real world power would accept what you did as legitimate. Whereas, if the ICC issues an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, many people around the world with real power (government officials, judges, diplomats, international bureaucrats, etc) will officially consider that a legitimate act. Now, of course, despite the fact these people do have some real world power, it is unlikely to be enough in practice to actually bring about Netanyahu's arrest. But still, that's a very different situation from your hypothetical of an act which nobody with any significant real world power would accept as legitimate.
And, an ICC arrest warrant is likely to have some real world consequences for Netanyahu – it will likely reduce somewhat his ability to travel internationally; it is also likely to harm Israel diplomatically and politically (e.g. it could well make an easier job for people lobbying for various governments to recognise the State of Palestine); conversely, it is likely also going to help Netanyahu in Israel's domestic politics; whereas, your warrant/trial would have zero real world consequences for him or for his government or country.
I find it a little unfortunate that the ANC, who have explicitly stated they won't enforce the ICC warrant against Putin (and have previously ignored ICC genocide charges against a Sudanese leader), were still considered a reasonable group to prosecute Israel.
Makes it look rather like they did so at the behest of Russia (whether on behalf of their ally Iran or as a simple continuation of Russian support for the ANC, who knows).
Even if it only looks like that, the conflict of interest is sufficiently obvious that I find it difficult to regard the ICC's indictments wrt Israel as judicially legitimate.
(this is not to imply that Israel is anywhere near innocent of all accusations made against her, only that I see no reason to trust the ICC's judgement in the matter of which ones she's guilty of)
The ICC is not prosecuting Israel. The ICC prosecutes individuals. South African or the ANC have no saying in who the ICC pursues cases against.
The ICJ is handling a the case against Israel filed by South Africa. The ICJ handles only cases with state parties, and only on the basis of complaints of one of those state parties.
The two cases are entirely separate, and the ICC and ICJ are two entirely different courts. The ICC was created under the Rome Statue. The ICJ, meanwhile was founded on the basis of the UN Charter.
I think ICJ giving credence to South Africa given they consider the ICC optional is still ... unfortunate, at best, but "conflict of interest" is rather less applicable.
This misunderstands how icc works. Generally the accused has to be in ICC custody for the case to go forward. Once the accused is in custody, the ICC has all sorts of power over them.
Perhaps you mean arresting people is hard. That is true, but the merit part only cones after that part.
> Which is why it’s pretty much only ever been used to prosecute WWII losers, Yugoslavian civil war losers
Neither of those were the ICC.
----
You're not entirely wrong of course. The ICC has trouble enforcing warrants against powerful people from powerful countries.