alt Hacker NewsYes, that’s what sovereignty means: a sovereign state governs itself and is not governed by others. A sovereign state can agree to abide by certain rules or submit some disputes to another arbiter, but it does so consensually by treaty. The US never ratified a treaty establishing the authority of the ICC, so it has not consented to that diminution of sovereignty.
You as an individual are not sovereign, and when you come to the land over which the US is sovereign, you are subject to US law.
Replies
The main part of the argument is that the US is very happy to apply their laws to foreign citizens for things they have done on foreign soil and are also happy to legally or illegally extract those citizens from the foreign states. That does in fact directly violate those other states sovereignty.
> The US never ratified a treaty establishing the authority of the ICC, so it has not consented to that diminution of sovereignty.
And the ICC never tried to diminish their sovereignty. Juridsiction at the icc works the same way as it does with states.
If you commit a crime on the territory of a sovereign state, that state gets to punish you. If you are a citizen of a soverign state then that state gets to punish you.
That is how it works in countries, and that is how it works at the ICC . ICC is no different from any country. The crime has to happen on the territory of a member state or be comitted by a national of a member state (im ignoring the referral from UNSC part as that is obscure)
Conversely, American individuals are also not sovereign so when they come to a sovereign land where they are sought (by the state or its partners through treaties) for crimes, they are subject to the the state's laws and treaties.
This would more persuasive if the US didn’t have a long history of prosecuting, even kidnapping, foreign nationals on foreign soil for violations of US law.
> The US never ratified a treaty establishing the authority of the ICC, so it has not consented to that diminution of sovereignty.
True, they could ignore the ICC, but they shouldn't go around sanctioning and punishing and threatening its judges.
> a sovereign state governs itself and is not governed by others
Hence, if anyone commits a crime in another country, they fall under the jurisdiction of that country. So while the US doesn't have to recognize the ICC, listen to it, or follow its verdicts, other countries are free to do so.
But now the US is threatening the judges of the ICC, which is hypocritical to say the least. It's more of a mafia thing, really. Not surprising, given Trump's background.
So it should be no surprise to USA that sovereign countries that abide to ICC rulings take actions against individual USA citizens.
Sure. But don’t come traveling here (Sweden) and tell us we can’t submit you to the ICC.
> You as an individual are not sovereign, and when you come to the land over which the US is sovereign, you are subject to US law.
And if an american, whom ICC have found guilty on crimes, visits a country which upholds ICC rulings they should be arrested, no?
Nobody talked about kidnapping people in the US or doing anything similar. In contrast, the US is in a habit on (among others)
1. kidnapping
2. bombing
3. otherwise assassinating
4. sanctioning
5. demanding extradition (the only actual "legal" part)
foreign citizens that they do not like. We can also say that no other, non american citizen has actually agreed to these practices either, nor to US authority to be the world serif. So these arguments more like read like monopoly of global violence/authority than "sovereignty".