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 6 mins ago
ahemmetter
5721411
asked 4 hours ago
user2501323user2501323
1,392525
|
show 6 more comments
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 6 mins ago
ahemmetter
5721411
asked 4 hours ago
user2501323user2501323
1,392525
12
Opposing human rights-related organizations is not a common thing US do. : citation needed !
– Evargalo
3 hours ago
7
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
3 hours ago
15
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
3 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
2 hours ago
5
@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
2 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
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 6 mins ago
ahemmetter
5721411
asked 4 hours ago
user2501323user2501323
1,392525
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
united-states international-law human-rights international-court
edited 6 mins ago
ahemmetter
5721411
asked 4 hours ago
user2501323user2501323
1,392525
edited 6 mins ago
ahemmetter
5721411
asked 4 hours ago
user2501323user2501323
1,392525
edited 6 mins ago
ahemmetter
5721411
edited 6 mins ago
ahemmetter
5721411
edited 6 mins ago
ahemmetter
5721411
5721411
asked 4 hours ago
user2501323user2501323
1,392525
asked 4 hours ago
user2501323user2501323
1,392525
asked 4 hours ago
user2501323user2501323
1,392525
1,392525
12
Opposing human rights-related organizations is not a common thing US do. : citation needed !
– Evargalo
3 hours ago
7
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
3 hours ago
15
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
3 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
2 hours ago
5
@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
2 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
12
Opposing human rights-related organizations is not a common thing US do. : citation needed !
– Evargalo
3 hours ago
7
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
3 hours ago
15
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
3 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
2 hours ago
5
@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
2 hours ago
12
12
Opposing human rights-related organizations is not a common thing US do. : citation needed !
– Evargalo
3 hours ago
Opposing human rights-related organizations is not a common thing US do. : citation needed !
– Evargalo
3 hours ago
7
7
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
3 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
3 hours ago
15
15
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
3 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
3 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
2 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
2 hours ago
5
5
@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
2 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
2 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
1 Answer
1
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 2 hours ago
RyathalRyathal
8,0641536
Yet the US violates human rights when invading countries: how does this not create the same debate? Are voters literary hypocrites who can only see the fault in others?
– paul23
29 mins ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f39543%2fwhy-us-is-opposing-international-criminal-court%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
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 2 hours ago
RyathalRyathal
8,0641536
Yet the US violates human rights when invading countries: how does this not create the same debate? Are voters literary hypocrites who can only see the fault in others?
– paul23
29 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 2 hours ago
RyathalRyathal
8,0641536
Yet the US violates human rights when invading countries: how does this not create the same debate? Are voters literary hypocrites who can only see the fault in others?
– paul23
29 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 2 hours ago
RyathalRyathal
8,0641536
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 2 hours ago
RyathalRyathal
8,0641536
answered 2 hours ago
RyathalRyathal
8,0641536
answered 2 hours ago
RyathalRyathal
8,0641536
answered 2 hours ago
RyathalRyathal
8,0641536
8,0641536
Yet the US violates human rights when invading countries: how does this not create the same debate? Are voters literary hypocrites who can only see the fault in others?
– paul23
29 mins ago
add a comment |
Yet the US violates human rights when invading countries: how does this not create the same debate? Are voters literary hypocrites who can only see the fault in others?
– paul23
29 mins ago
Yet the US violates human rights when invading countries: how does this not create the same debate? Are voters literary hypocrites who can only see the fault in others?
– paul23
29 mins ago
Yet the US violates human rights when invading countries: how does this not create the same debate? Are voters literary hypocrites who can only see the fault in others?
– paul23
29 mins ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f39543%2fwhy-us-is-opposing-international-criminal-court%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
12
Opposing human rights-related organizations is not a common thing US do. : citation needed !
– Evargalo
3 hours ago
7
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
3 hours ago
15
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
3 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
2 hours ago
5
@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
2 hours ago