This question already has an answer here:
Why has the United States not signed and ratified the International Criminal Court?
3 answers
Some time ago (about half a year in fact), the US withdrew from some treaties related to the ICC. As I understand, the main reason is to protect US military personnel from potential ICC investigations. Human Rights Watch already criticized this decision.
But why is the US doing such uncommon things in this case? Opposing human rights-related organizations is not a common thing for the US to do. I thought that the US is always on the side of such organizations. But what's wrong here?
Main source: https://www.theweek.in/news/world/2018/10/04/bolton-calls-icj--politicised---pulls-us-out-of-international-ac.html
Didn't find source about HRW criticizing this, but surely heard about it.
united-states international-law human-rights international-court
edited 1 hour ago
ahemmetter
5721411
asked 5 hours ago
user2501323user2501323
1,397526
marked as duplicate by pjc50, bytebuster, Orangesandlemons, Drunk Cynic, gerrit 20 mins ago
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
|
show 5 more comments
This question already has an answer here:
Why has the United States not signed and ratified the International Criminal Court?
3 answers
Some time ago (about half a year in fact), the US withdrew from some treaties related to the ICC. As I understand, the main reason is to protect US military personnel from potential ICC investigations. Human Rights Watch already criticized this decision.
But why is the US doing such uncommon things in this case? Opposing human rights-related organizations is not a common thing for the US to do. I thought that the US is always on the side of such organizations. But what's wrong here?
Main source: https://www.theweek.in/news/world/2018/10/04/bolton-calls-icj--politicised---pulls-us-out-of-international-ac.html
Didn't find source about HRW criticizing this, but surely heard about it.
united-states international-law human-rights international-court
edited 1 hour ago
ahemmetter
5721411
asked 5 hours ago
user2501323user2501323
1,397526
marked as duplicate by pjc50, bytebuster, Orangesandlemons, Drunk Cynic, gerrit 20 mins ago
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
22
Opposing human rights-related organizations is not a common thing US do. : citation needed !
– Evargalo
4 hours ago
9
Because doing so puts US citizens at the mercy of non-us citizens. Why any country would not do this is the real question.
– jmoreno
4 hours ago
19
The US position on human rights, as opposed to its own particular interpretation of constitutional rights, has always been quite weak. And the US power structure is very opposed to having any of its freedom to kill or torture non-US nationals outside the US restricted.
– pjc50
4 hours ago
3
@jmoreno because the crimes prosecuted at the ICJ often involve governments, and no country would judge itself for war crimes. A fair justice system requires that the judges are independent from the accused.
– Erwan
4 hours ago
7
@jmoreno for the common good, exactly like citizens in a society agree to subject themselves to the laws of this society because they believe it will protect the society as a whole, including themselves. Of course this requires trust in the laws and in the other members of this society, that's probably why the US doesn't agree about the ICJ.
– Erwan
3 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
This question already has an answer here:
Why has the United States not signed and ratified the International Criminal Court?
3 answers
Some time ago (about half a year in fact), the US withdrew from some treaties related to the ICC. As I understand, the main reason is to protect US military personnel from potential ICC investigations. Human Rights Watch already criticized this decision.
But why is the US doing such uncommon things in this case? Opposing human rights-related organizations is not a common thing for the US to do. I thought that the US is always on the side of such organizations. But what's wrong here?
Main source: https://www.theweek.in/news/world/2018/10/04/bolton-calls-icj--politicised---pulls-us-out-of-international-ac.html
Didn't find source about HRW criticizing this, but surely heard about it.
united-states international-law human-rights international-court
edited 1 hour ago
ahemmetter
5721411
asked 5 hours ago
user2501323user2501323
1,397526
This question already has an answer here:
Why has the United States not signed and ratified the International Criminal Court?
3 answers
Some time ago (about half a year in fact), the US withdrew from some treaties related to the ICC. As I understand, the main reason is to protect US military personnel from potential ICC investigations. Human Rights Watch already criticized this decision.
But why is the US doing such uncommon things in this case? Opposing human rights-related organizations is not a common thing for the US to do. I thought that the US is always on the side of such organizations. But what's wrong here?
Main source: https://www.theweek.in/news/world/2018/10/04/bolton-calls-icj--politicised---pulls-us-out-of-international-ac.html
Didn't find source about HRW criticizing this, but surely heard about it.
This question already has an answer here:
Why has the United States not signed and ratified the International Criminal Court?
3 answers
united-states international-law human-rights international-court
united-states international-law human-rights international-court
edited 1 hour ago
ahemmetter
5721411
asked 5 hours ago
user2501323user2501323
1,397526
edited 1 hour ago
ahemmetter
5721411
asked 5 hours ago
user2501323user2501323
1,397526
edited 1 hour ago
ahemmetter
5721411
edited 1 hour ago
ahemmetter
5721411
edited 1 hour ago
ahemmetter
5721411
5721411
asked 5 hours ago
user2501323user2501323
1,397526
asked 5 hours ago
user2501323user2501323
1,397526
asked 5 hours ago
user2501323user2501323
1,397526
1,397526
marked as duplicate by pjc50, bytebuster, Orangesandlemons, Drunk Cynic, gerrit 20 mins ago
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
marked as duplicate by pjc50, bytebuster, Orangesandlemons, Drunk Cynic, gerrit 20 mins ago
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
22
Opposing human rights-related organizations is not a common thing US do. : citation needed !
– Evargalo
4 hours ago
9
Because doing so puts US citizens at the mercy of non-us citizens. Why any country would not do this is the real question.
– jmoreno
4 hours ago
19
The US position on human rights, as opposed to its own particular interpretation of constitutional rights, has always been quite weak. And the US power structure is very opposed to having any of its freedom to kill or torture non-US nationals outside the US restricted.
– pjc50
4 hours ago
3
@jmoreno because the crimes prosecuted at the ICJ often involve governments, and no country would judge itself for war crimes. A fair justice system requires that the judges are independent from the accused.
– Erwan
4 hours ago
7
@jmoreno for the common good, exactly like citizens in a society agree to subject themselves to the laws of this society because they believe it will protect the society as a whole, including themselves. Of course this requires trust in the laws and in the other members of this society, that's probably why the US doesn't agree about the ICJ.
– Erwan
3 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
22
Opposing human rights-related organizations is not a common thing US do. : citation needed !
– Evargalo
4 hours ago
9
Because doing so puts US citizens at the mercy of non-us citizens. Why any country would not do this is the real question.
– jmoreno
4 hours ago
19
The US position on human rights, as opposed to its own particular interpretation of constitutional rights, has always been quite weak. And the US power structure is very opposed to having any of its freedom to kill or torture non-US nationals outside the US restricted.
– pjc50
4 hours ago
3
@jmoreno because the crimes prosecuted at the ICJ often involve governments, and no country would judge itself for war crimes. A fair justice system requires that the judges are independent from the accused.
– Erwan
4 hours ago
7
@jmoreno for the common good, exactly like citizens in a society agree to subject themselves to the laws of this society because they believe it will protect the society as a whole, including themselves. Of course this requires trust in the laws and in the other members of this society, that's probably why the US doesn't agree about the ICJ.
– Erwan
3 hours ago
22
22
Opposing human rights-related organizations is not a common thing US do. : citation needed !
– Evargalo
4 hours ago
Opposing human rights-related organizations is not a common thing US do. : citation needed !
– Evargalo
4 hours ago
9
9
Because doing so puts US citizens at the mercy of non-us citizens. Why any country would not do this is the real question.
– jmoreno
4 hours ago
Because doing so puts US citizens at the mercy of non-us citizens. Why any country would not do this is the real question.
– jmoreno
4 hours ago
19
19
The US position on human rights, as opposed to its own particular interpretation of constitutional rights, has always been quite weak. And the US power structure is very opposed to having any of its freedom to kill or torture non-US nationals outside the US restricted.
– pjc50
4 hours ago
The US position on human rights, as opposed to its own particular interpretation of constitutional rights, has always been quite weak. And the US power structure is very opposed to having any of its freedom to kill or torture non-US nationals outside the US restricted.
– pjc50
4 hours ago
3
3
@jmoreno because the crimes prosecuted at the ICJ often involve governments, and no country would judge itself for war crimes. A fair justice system requires that the judges are independent from the accused.
– Erwan
4 hours ago
@jmoreno because the crimes prosecuted at the ICJ often involve governments, and no country would judge itself for war crimes. A fair justice system requires that the judges are independent from the accused.
– Erwan
4 hours ago
7
7
@jmoreno for the common good, exactly like citizens in a society agree to subject themselves to the laws of this society because they believe it will protect the society as a whole, including themselves. Of course this requires trust in the laws and in the other members of this society, that's probably why the US doesn't agree about the ICJ.
– Erwan
3 hours ago
@jmoreno for the common good, exactly like citizens in a society agree to subject themselves to the laws of this society because they believe it will protect the society as a whole, including themselves. Of course this requires trust in the laws and in the other members of this society, that's probably why the US doesn't agree about the ICJ.
– Erwan
3 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
The united states has never really been supportive of international law treaties. The main reason is many of them violate rights granted to citizens and are fairly major breaches of sovereignty. Most prominently is the refusal to recognize the International Criminal Court. The international Court of Justice is slightly different, in that it is partially recognized by the United States. The opposition to the ICJ is not new, the U.S. has selectively recognized the court since 1986. The ICJ itself isn't really a human rights organization, its a body meant to help resolve conflict between nations. Current criticisms of the U.S. not supporting the ICJ are as much part of Trump derangement syndrome, the current administration is essentially echoing longstanding policy (though generally less eloquently).
The United States is generally opposed to international organizations that grant themselves power over member countries. The most common reasoning are the lack of checks and balances on the power of these organizations, but many also tend to violate the rights granted U.S. citizens in trials. Another common reason is that many of these organizations don't support or directly oppose U.S. interests and attempt to get the U.S. to pay for their actions. The withdrawal from the Human Rights Council is an example of this.
answered 3 hours ago
RyathalRyathal
8,0901537
"many also tend to violate the rights granted U.S. citizens in trials" - really? Do you have citations for this?
– pjc50
1 hour ago
3
@pjc50 One example of an international court violating Americans' rights is that in the International Criminal Court cases are decided by a tribunal of judges, the US Constitution grants the right to be judged by a jury of peers.
– EldritchWarlord
55 mins ago
The claim that current US policy concerning the ICJ is longstanding policy would also strongly benefit from a citation. Clearly on paper US policy formally changed changed when it withdrew from the international agreements it was previously party to, so it would be helpful to understand in what sense withdrawing from the agreements didn't affect the policy intentions expressed in public by the US.
– Will
49 mins ago
@Will In 2002, USA created a law to "protect United States military personnel and other elected and appointed officials of the United States government against criminal prosecution by an international criminal court to which the United States is not party." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… . Also known as the "The Hague Invasion Act" in The Netherlands.
– Sjoerd
46 mins ago
@Sjoerd comments are for improving the answer they are attached to, not general discussion. If you think this is a helpful citation you could propose it as an edit to the above answer or post your own. I would question its relevance to US policy on the ICJ though. The ICJ has a pretty distinct function to the ICC. If citing US policy rejecting ICC jurisdiction should be understood as implicitly rejecting all jurisdictions established by international agreement such as the ICJ it would be better to give an example of a legal authority that endorsed this interpretation.
– Will
16 mins ago
add a comment |
The general answer is that independent courts which have the power to prosecute and publicize injustice and are potentially equipped to enforce justice; that such courts protect the weaker ones from the stronger ones, on all levels of the justice system.
The stronger ones on all levels have less incentive to support justice since
- they can protect themselves;
- the privilege of behaving as they see fit, without the fear of being prosecuted, appears advantageous.
If you want a more abstract formulation, you could say that transferring some sovereignty — clearly a disadvantage — to supranational bodies makes only sense (in a purely economical sense, and perhaps on short time scales) if the benefit surpasses the loss. This is the case for small countries whose effective freedom to move internationally is limited to begin with, but who are under constant threats from stronger players.
By contrast, the loss-benefit saldo is probably negative for strong nations who can move at will on the international stage and have next to nothing to fear from other nations (or only from other nations who themselves have limited respect of international institutions).
This rationale applies without reservation to the United States' apprehension towards international institutions, of which the International Criminal Court is just one example.
answered 59 mins ago
Peter A. SchneiderPeter A. Schneider
2,367818
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The united states has never really been supportive of international law treaties. The main reason is many of them violate rights granted to citizens and are fairly major breaches of sovereignty. Most prominently is the refusal to recognize the International Criminal Court. The international Court of Justice is slightly different, in that it is partially recognized by the United States. The opposition to the ICJ is not new, the U.S. has selectively recognized the court since 1986. The ICJ itself isn't really a human rights organization, its a body meant to help resolve conflict between nations. Current criticisms of the U.S. not supporting the ICJ are as much part of Trump derangement syndrome, the current administration is essentially echoing longstanding policy (though generally less eloquently).
The United States is generally opposed to international organizations that grant themselves power over member countries. The most common reasoning are the lack of checks and balances on the power of these organizations, but many also tend to violate the rights granted U.S. citizens in trials. Another common reason is that many of these organizations don't support or directly oppose U.S. interests and attempt to get the U.S. to pay for their actions. The withdrawal from the Human Rights Council is an example of this.
answered 3 hours ago
RyathalRyathal
8,0901537
"many also tend to violate the rights granted U.S. citizens in trials" - really? Do you have citations for this?
– pjc50
1 hour ago
3
@pjc50 One example of an international court violating Americans' rights is that in the International Criminal Court cases are decided by a tribunal of judges, the US Constitution grants the right to be judged by a jury of peers.
– EldritchWarlord
55 mins ago
The claim that current US policy concerning the ICJ is longstanding policy would also strongly benefit from a citation. Clearly on paper US policy formally changed changed when it withdrew from the international agreements it was previously party to, so it would be helpful to understand in what sense withdrawing from the agreements didn't affect the policy intentions expressed in public by the US.
– Will
49 mins ago
@Will In 2002, USA created a law to "protect United States military personnel and other elected and appointed officials of the United States government against criminal prosecution by an international criminal court to which the United States is not party." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… . Also known as the "The Hague Invasion Act" in The Netherlands.
– Sjoerd
46 mins ago
@Sjoerd comments are for improving the answer they are attached to, not general discussion. If you think this is a helpful citation you could propose it as an edit to the above answer or post your own. I would question its relevance to US policy on the ICJ though. The ICJ has a pretty distinct function to the ICC. If citing US policy rejecting ICC jurisdiction should be understood as implicitly rejecting all jurisdictions established by international agreement such as the ICJ it would be better to give an example of a legal authority that endorsed this interpretation.
– Will
16 mins ago
add a comment |
The united states has never really been supportive of international law treaties. The main reason is many of them violate rights granted to citizens and are fairly major breaches of sovereignty. Most prominently is the refusal to recognize the International Criminal Court. The international Court of Justice is slightly different, in that it is partially recognized by the United States. The opposition to the ICJ is not new, the U.S. has selectively recognized the court since 1986. The ICJ itself isn't really a human rights organization, its a body meant to help resolve conflict between nations. Current criticisms of the U.S. not supporting the ICJ are as much part of Trump derangement syndrome, the current administration is essentially echoing longstanding policy (though generally less eloquently).
The United States is generally opposed to international organizations that grant themselves power over member countries. The most common reasoning are the lack of checks and balances on the power of these organizations, but many also tend to violate the rights granted U.S. citizens in trials. Another common reason is that many of these organizations don't support or directly oppose U.S. interests and attempt to get the U.S. to pay for their actions. The withdrawal from the Human Rights Council is an example of this.
answered 3 hours ago
RyathalRyathal
8,0901537
"many also tend to violate the rights granted U.S. citizens in trials" - really? Do you have citations for this?
– pjc50
1 hour ago
3
@pjc50 One example of an international court violating Americans' rights is that in the International Criminal Court cases are decided by a tribunal of judges, the US Constitution grants the right to be judged by a jury of peers.
– EldritchWarlord
55 mins ago
The claim that current US policy concerning the ICJ is longstanding policy would also strongly benefit from a citation. Clearly on paper US policy formally changed changed when it withdrew from the international agreements it was previously party to, so it would be helpful to understand in what sense withdrawing from the agreements didn't affect the policy intentions expressed in public by the US.
– Will
49 mins ago
@Will In 2002, USA created a law to "protect United States military personnel and other elected and appointed officials of the United States government against criminal prosecution by an international criminal court to which the United States is not party." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… . Also known as the "The Hague Invasion Act" in The Netherlands.
– Sjoerd
46 mins ago
@Sjoerd comments are for improving the answer they are attached to, not general discussion. If you think this is a helpful citation you could propose it as an edit to the above answer or post your own. I would question its relevance to US policy on the ICJ though. The ICJ has a pretty distinct function to the ICC. If citing US policy rejecting ICC jurisdiction should be understood as implicitly rejecting all jurisdictions established by international agreement such as the ICJ it would be better to give an example of a legal authority that endorsed this interpretation.
– Will
16 mins ago
add a comment |
The united states has never really been supportive of international law treaties. The main reason is many of them violate rights granted to citizens and are fairly major breaches of sovereignty. Most prominently is the refusal to recognize the International Criminal Court. The international Court of Justice is slightly different, in that it is partially recognized by the United States. The opposition to the ICJ is not new, the U.S. has selectively recognized the court since 1986. The ICJ itself isn't really a human rights organization, its a body meant to help resolve conflict between nations. Current criticisms of the U.S. not supporting the ICJ are as much part of Trump derangement syndrome, the current administration is essentially echoing longstanding policy (though generally less eloquently).
The United States is generally opposed to international organizations that grant themselves power over member countries. The most common reasoning are the lack of checks and balances on the power of these organizations, but many also tend to violate the rights granted U.S. citizens in trials. Another common reason is that many of these organizations don't support or directly oppose U.S. interests and attempt to get the U.S. to pay for their actions. The withdrawal from the Human Rights Council is an example of this.
answered 3 hours ago
RyathalRyathal
8,0901537
The united states has never really been supportive of international law treaties. The main reason is many of them violate rights granted to citizens and are fairly major breaches of sovereignty. Most prominently is the refusal to recognize the International Criminal Court. The international Court of Justice is slightly different, in that it is partially recognized by the United States. The opposition to the ICJ is not new, the U.S. has selectively recognized the court since 1986. The ICJ itself isn't really a human rights organization, its a body meant to help resolve conflict between nations. Current criticisms of the U.S. not supporting the ICJ are as much part of Trump derangement syndrome, the current administration is essentially echoing longstanding policy (though generally less eloquently).
The United States is generally opposed to international organizations that grant themselves power over member countries. The most common reasoning are the lack of checks and balances on the power of these organizations, but many also tend to violate the rights granted U.S. citizens in trials. Another common reason is that many of these organizations don't support or directly oppose U.S. interests and attempt to get the U.S. to pay for their actions. The withdrawal from the Human Rights Council is an example of this.
answered 3 hours ago
RyathalRyathal
8,0901537
answered 3 hours ago
RyathalRyathal
8,0901537
answered 3 hours ago
RyathalRyathal
8,0901537
answered 3 hours ago
RyathalRyathal
8,0901537
8,0901537
"many also tend to violate the rights granted U.S. citizens in trials" - really? Do you have citations for this?
– pjc50
1 hour ago
3
@pjc50 One example of an international court violating Americans' rights is that in the International Criminal Court cases are decided by a tribunal of judges, the US Constitution grants the right to be judged by a jury of peers.
– EldritchWarlord
55 mins ago
The claim that current US policy concerning the ICJ is longstanding policy would also strongly benefit from a citation. Clearly on paper US policy formally changed changed when it withdrew from the international agreements it was previously party to, so it would be helpful to understand in what sense withdrawing from the agreements didn't affect the policy intentions expressed in public by the US.
– Will
49 mins ago
@Will In 2002, USA created a law to "protect United States military personnel and other elected and appointed officials of the United States government against criminal prosecution by an international criminal court to which the United States is not party." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… . Also known as the "The Hague Invasion Act" in The Netherlands.
– Sjoerd
46 mins ago
@Sjoerd comments are for improving the answer they are attached to, not general discussion. If you think this is a helpful citation you could propose it as an edit to the above answer or post your own. I would question its relevance to US policy on the ICJ though. The ICJ has a pretty distinct function to the ICC. If citing US policy rejecting ICC jurisdiction should be understood as implicitly rejecting all jurisdictions established by international agreement such as the ICJ it would be better to give an example of a legal authority that endorsed this interpretation.
– Will
16 mins ago
add a comment |
"many also tend to violate the rights granted U.S. citizens in trials" - really? Do you have citations for this?
– pjc50
1 hour ago
3
@pjc50 One example of an international court violating Americans' rights is that in the International Criminal Court cases are decided by a tribunal of judges, the US Constitution grants the right to be judged by a jury of peers.
– EldritchWarlord
55 mins ago
The claim that current US policy concerning the ICJ is longstanding policy would also strongly benefit from a citation. Clearly on paper US policy formally changed changed when it withdrew from the international agreements it was previously party to, so it would be helpful to understand in what sense withdrawing from the agreements didn't affect the policy intentions expressed in public by the US.
– Will
49 mins ago
@Will In 2002, USA created a law to "protect United States military personnel and other elected and appointed officials of the United States government against criminal prosecution by an international criminal court to which the United States is not party." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… . Also known as the "The Hague Invasion Act" in The Netherlands.
– Sjoerd
46 mins ago
@Sjoerd comments are for improving the answer they are attached to, not general discussion. If you think this is a helpful citation you could propose it as an edit to the above answer or post your own. I would question its relevance to US policy on the ICJ though. The ICJ has a pretty distinct function to the ICC. If citing US policy rejecting ICC jurisdiction should be understood as implicitly rejecting all jurisdictions established by international agreement such as the ICJ it would be better to give an example of a legal authority that endorsed this interpretation.
– Will
16 mins ago
"many also tend to violate the rights granted U.S. citizens in trials" - really? Do you have citations for this?
– pjc50
1 hour ago
"many also tend to violate the rights granted U.S. citizens in trials" - really? Do you have citations for this?
– pjc50
1 hour ago
3
3
@pjc50 One example of an international court violating Americans' rights is that in the International Criminal Court cases are decided by a tribunal of judges, the US Constitution grants the right to be judged by a jury of peers.
– EldritchWarlord
55 mins ago
@pjc50 One example of an international court violating Americans' rights is that in the International Criminal Court cases are decided by a tribunal of judges, the US Constitution grants the right to be judged by a jury of peers.
– EldritchWarlord
55 mins ago
The claim that current US policy concerning the ICJ is longstanding policy would also strongly benefit from a citation. Clearly on paper US policy formally changed changed when it withdrew from the international agreements it was previously party to, so it would be helpful to understand in what sense withdrawing from the agreements didn't affect the policy intentions expressed in public by the US.
– Will
49 mins ago
The claim that current US policy concerning the ICJ is longstanding policy would also strongly benefit from a citation. Clearly on paper US policy formally changed changed when it withdrew from the international agreements it was previously party to, so it would be helpful to understand in what sense withdrawing from the agreements didn't affect the policy intentions expressed in public by the US.
– Will
49 mins ago
@Will In 2002, USA created a law to "protect United States military personnel and other elected and appointed officials of the United States government against criminal prosecution by an international criminal court to which the United States is not party." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… . Also known as the "The Hague Invasion Act" in The Netherlands.
– Sjoerd
46 mins ago
@Will In 2002, USA created a law to "protect United States military personnel and other elected and appointed officials of the United States government against criminal prosecution by an international criminal court to which the United States is not party." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… . Also known as the "The Hague Invasion Act" in The Netherlands.
– Sjoerd
46 mins ago
@Sjoerd comments are for improving the answer they are attached to, not general discussion. If you think this is a helpful citation you could propose it as an edit to the above answer or post your own. I would question its relevance to US policy on the ICJ though. The ICJ has a pretty distinct function to the ICC. If citing US policy rejecting ICC jurisdiction should be understood as implicitly rejecting all jurisdictions established by international agreement such as the ICJ it would be better to give an example of a legal authority that endorsed this interpretation.
– Will
16 mins ago
@Sjoerd comments are for improving the answer they are attached to, not general discussion. If you think this is a helpful citation you could propose it as an edit to the above answer or post your own. I would question its relevance to US policy on the ICJ though. The ICJ has a pretty distinct function to the ICC. If citing US policy rejecting ICC jurisdiction should be understood as implicitly rejecting all jurisdictions established by international agreement such as the ICJ it would be better to give an example of a legal authority that endorsed this interpretation.
– Will
16 mins ago
add a comment |
The general answer is that independent courts which have the power to prosecute and publicize injustice and are potentially equipped to enforce justice; that such courts protect the weaker ones from the stronger ones, on all levels of the justice system.
The stronger ones on all levels have less incentive to support justice since
- they can protect themselves;
- the privilege of behaving as they see fit, without the fear of being prosecuted, appears advantageous.
If you want a more abstract formulation, you could say that transferring some sovereignty — clearly a disadvantage — to supranational bodies makes only sense (in a purely economical sense, and perhaps on short time scales) if the benefit surpasses the loss. This is the case for small countries whose effective freedom to move internationally is limited to begin with, but who are under constant threats from stronger players.
By contrast, the loss-benefit saldo is probably negative for strong nations who can move at will on the international stage and have next to nothing to fear from other nations (or only from other nations who themselves have limited respect of international institutions).
This rationale applies without reservation to the United States' apprehension towards international institutions, of which the International Criminal Court is just one example.
answered 59 mins ago
Peter A. SchneiderPeter A. Schneider
2,367818
add a comment |
The general answer is that independent courts which have the power to prosecute and publicize injustice and are potentially equipped to enforce justice; that such courts protect the weaker ones from the stronger ones, on all levels of the justice system.
The stronger ones on all levels have less incentive to support justice since
- they can protect themselves;
- the privilege of behaving as they see fit, without the fear of being prosecuted, appears advantageous.
If you want a more abstract formulation, you could say that transferring some sovereignty — clearly a disadvantage — to supranational bodies makes only sense (in a purely economical sense, and perhaps on short time scales) if the benefit surpasses the loss. This is the case for small countries whose effective freedom to move internationally is limited to begin with, but who are under constant threats from stronger players.
By contrast, the loss-benefit saldo is probably negative for strong nations who can move at will on the international stage and have next to nothing to fear from other nations (or only from other nations who themselves have limited respect of international institutions).
This rationale applies without reservation to the United States' apprehension towards international institutions, of which the International Criminal Court is just one example.
answered 59 mins ago
Peter A. SchneiderPeter A. Schneider
2,367818
add a comment |
The general answer is that independent courts which have the power to prosecute and publicize injustice and are potentially equipped to enforce justice; that such courts protect the weaker ones from the stronger ones, on all levels of the justice system.
The stronger ones on all levels have less incentive to support justice since
- they can protect themselves;
- the privilege of behaving as they see fit, without the fear of being prosecuted, appears advantageous.
If you want a more abstract formulation, you could say that transferring some sovereignty — clearly a disadvantage — to supranational bodies makes only sense (in a purely economical sense, and perhaps on short time scales) if the benefit surpasses the loss. This is the case for small countries whose effective freedom to move internationally is limited to begin with, but who are under constant threats from stronger players.
By contrast, the loss-benefit saldo is probably negative for strong nations who can move at will on the international stage and have next to nothing to fear from other nations (or only from other nations who themselves have limited respect of international institutions).
This rationale applies without reservation to the United States' apprehension towards international institutions, of which the International Criminal Court is just one example.
answered 59 mins ago
Peter A. SchneiderPeter A. Schneider
2,367818
The general answer is that independent courts which have the power to prosecute and publicize injustice and are potentially equipped to enforce justice; that such courts protect the weaker ones from the stronger ones, on all levels of the justice system.
The stronger ones on all levels have less incentive to support justice since
- they can protect themselves;
- the privilege of behaving as they see fit, without the fear of being prosecuted, appears advantageous.
If you want a more abstract formulation, you could say that transferring some sovereignty — clearly a disadvantage — to supranational bodies makes only sense (in a purely economical sense, and perhaps on short time scales) if the benefit surpasses the loss. This is the case for small countries whose effective freedom to move internationally is limited to begin with, but who are under constant threats from stronger players.
By contrast, the loss-benefit saldo is probably negative for strong nations who can move at will on the international stage and have next to nothing to fear from other nations (or only from other nations who themselves have limited respect of international institutions).
This rationale applies without reservation to the United States' apprehension towards international institutions, of which the International Criminal Court is just one example.
answered 59 mins ago
Peter A. SchneiderPeter A. Schneider
2,367818
edited 52 mins ago
answered 59 mins ago
Peter A. SchneiderPeter A. Schneider
2,367818
answered 59 mins ago
Peter A. SchneiderPeter A. Schneider
2,367818
answered 59 mins ago
Peter A. SchneiderPeter A. Schneider
2,367818
2,367818
add a comment |
add a comment |
22
Opposing human rights-related organizations is not a common thing US do. : citation needed !
– Evargalo
4 hours ago
9
Because doing so puts US citizens at the mercy of non-us citizens. Why any country would not do this is the real question.
– jmoreno
4 hours ago
19
The US position on human rights, as opposed to its own particular interpretation of constitutional rights, has always been quite weak. And the US power structure is very opposed to having any of its freedom to kill or torture non-US nationals outside the US restricted.
– pjc50
4 hours ago
3
@jmoreno because the crimes prosecuted at the ICJ often involve governments, and no country would judge itself for war crimes. A fair justice system requires that the judges are independent from the accused.
– Erwan
4 hours ago
7
@jmoreno for the common good, exactly like citizens in a society agree to subject themselves to the laws of this society because they believe it will protect the society as a whole, including themselves. Of course this requires trust in the laws and in the other members of this society, that's probably why the US doesn't agree about the ICJ.
– Erwan
3 hours ago