[tsimionescu]

First of all, the mere existence of this ruling should be a guiding star for discourse on the topic. It's unacceptable for so much discourse to claim that there Israel is "just defending itself" when there are actual independent legal experts, with no hidden motives, pouring over the details and concluding that they are slaughtering civilians. So even if no enforcement of any kind happened, it would still be worth it to get an informed and unbiased opinion like this out there.

Second of all, countries which are currently helping Israel in its slaughter have internal laws that can be invoked, through their court systems if need be, that should take this ICJ opinion into consideration when evaluating if the government should instead prohibit arms and other aid to Israel in this matter. So there is at least some glimmer of a chance for actual pressure from this ruling. It will take some time to materialize, of course.

[immibis]

They will simply claim everyone involved is a Hamas operative, there is no genocide in Ba Sing Se, and they are still just defending themselves. I also remind you that the USA has a law on the books authorizing the invasion of any country which attempts to enforce any international court order which the USA disagrees with.

[tsimionescu]

I believe that law is slightly more limited - they reserve the right to invade anyone who attempts to prosecute US citizens and particularly US military in international courts. I don't think it extends this type of protection to allies. At least the infamous "Hague Invasion Act" doesn't.

[gizmo686]

Section 2008 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-107publ206/html/PLA...

> (a) Authority.--The President is authorized to use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any person described in subsection (b) who is being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court.

> (b) Persons Authorized To Be Freed.--The authority of subsection (a) shall extend to the following persons:

> (1) Covered United States persons.

> (2) Covered allied persons.

> (3) Individuals detained or imprisoned for official actions taken while the individual was a covered United States person or a covered allied person, and in the case of a covered allied person, upon the request of such government.

[tsimionescu]

Wow, I didn't know it extended that much. Insane to think they then have the gall to claim they are an actor for a rules-based world order...

[immibis]

They are. The rules are: heads I win, tails you lose.

[goldfishgold]

What does covered mean here? Who is covered?

[gizmo686]

Section 2013:

> (3) Covered allied persons.--The term ``covered allied persons'' means military personnel, elected or appointed officials, and other persons employed by or working on behalf of the government of a NATO member country, a major non-NATO ally (including Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Argentina, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand), or Taiwan, for so long as that government is not a party to the International Criminal Court and wishes its officials and other persons working on its behalf to be exempted from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

> (4) Covered united states persons.--The term ``covered United States persons'' means members of the Armed Forces of the United States, elected or appointed officials of the United States Government, and other persons employed by or working on behalf of the United States Government, for so long as the United States is not a party to the International Criminal Court.

[goldfishgold]

Grim. Thanks for digging that up.

[runarberg]

I was under the impression that that was just the ICC, as a) USA is not a member of the Rome Statute, b) the ICC prosecutes individuals, not state actors, and c) USA has a really extreme policy of protecting their citizens—even guilty those guilty of crimes—from foreign jurisdictions.

The ICJ on the other hand is just a tribunal which orders and advises states and international organizations.