[mathgradthrow]

The US position on the ICC is very reasonable. Absolutely no one should agree to be under the jurisdiction of an independent international court, but at least many of its members signed on to it.

The court believes that it has jurisdiction over anyone involved in a conflict with a signatory. This is why the president is preauthorized by congress to use military force against the Netherlands, in the event that an american or allied service member is held there.

[fwn]

This seems like a tangent. The article isn’t about whether the ICC’s jurisdiction is valid—it's about how dependent international institutions (or anyone, really) are on US-based tech providers, and how that exposes them to US executive power, like sanctions or account blocks.

I’m not convinced that “digital sovereignty” is the right framing for this problem. What I think is more important here - and probably more interesting to HN - is the fragility introduced by technological monocultures and lack of service portability. Open protocols, interoperability, and reducing concentration risk matter more than trying to build a digitally fenced-off Europe.

[saubeidl]

I think either approach works.

China is definitely digitally fenced-off and you don't see it having these issues.

[fwn]

> China is definitely digitally fenced-off and you don't see it having these issues.

China is the textbook example of this problem. Political power in China routinely uses infrastructure to suppress or punish those who deviate from approved positions. This is precisely the risk that the article raises.

And obviously, if the ICC were to switch to Chinese infrastructure, it would just be trading one leverage for a more active one.

[pk-protect-ai]

Now this happens in US too... ICC must use its own mail servers. Actually any government or international organization must use its own infrastructure. Dependency on any 3rd party is an attack vector.

[saubeidl]

That's a separate issue. Infrastructure is never suppressed in China because somebody outside of China disapproves of a position. The sovereignty of the Chinese state is maintained.

[trod1234]

> who deviate from approved positions.

That's making it sound like those approved positions are unchanging. They constantly change, and punish those that didn't change quick enough.

The anaconda in the chandelier in a locked room of blind people.

[mathgradthrow]

Of course its a tangent. The article is trying to talk around the fact the the ICC is a unique diplomatic object wrt the US. Bringing this fact into focus in the conversation is tangential to the article because the article fails to incorporate it.

[trod1234]

> Open protocols ... concentration risk matter more...

Well it all comes down to the incentives and money. Money printing sieves money into such titans, concentrating business. You gotta look at the banking cartel before anything else.

[saubeidl]

That position is pure hubris.

[mathgradthrow]

Can you use hubris is a different sentence, so that I can make sure I inderstand what you think it means?

[saubeidl]

It was imperialist hubris for Russia to attack Ukraine.

[mystified5016]

No, the president of the US should just be considered by all to be the god-emperor of the planet.

[aegypti]

ICC signatories:

- Europe

- LATAM

- subsaharan Africa

ICC nonsignatories:

- US

- China

- India

- Russia

- Turkey

- Israel

- Pakistan

- Egypt

- Saudi Arabia

Hubris is imagining a situation in which The Hague Act is ever tested in the first place!

[frankharv]

Meanwhile Ursula "lost" her phones text messages and is laughing at oversight.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2x7gzdr01o

[jamesblonde]

Whataboutism

[polski-g]

Israel never agreed to abide by the ICC and they're still trying to claim authority over Israeli actions? That's crazy.

[dlubarov]

Yeah, the ICC considers itself to have jurisdiction over crimes committed by non-parties if they're within the territory of a party to the Rome Statute.

Here the argument goes that the State of Palestine is a party, and Gaza is somehow its territory, even though it has never controlled or governed Gaza.

[runarberg]

The State of Palestine has two government at the moment which govern separate territories, just like Libya, Yemen, or China. Neither government of Palestine disputes the ICCs jurisdiction over Gaza. And unlike China there have been numerous attempts to unify the two governments, most of them were stopped by Israel.

I think the ICCs argument of jurisdiction is entirely reasonable, and consistent with how the court has ruled previously.

EDIT: Since this is Hacker News and we like nerdy details, I’ve linked below the 2021 ruling that established it’s jurisdiction of Palestine. The ruling was 3-1 and explicitly included the West Bank including East Jerusalem, and Gaza.

https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/icc-pre-trial-chamber-i-issues-...

[dlubarov]

Hamas' feelings about the case aren't really relevant to jurisdiction, partly because the ICC doesn't recognize Gaza as a state, and partly since Hamas hasn't accepted the ICC's jurisdiction. The latter would require Hamas to accept ICC jurisdiction over crimes committed by themselves, not only by Israel, so I don't think that would happen regardless of the statehood matter.

Libya, Yemen, and China are a bit different since they used to be unified states. It's great that there's a vision for a unified State of Palestine, but I don't think it makes any sense for the international community to pretend that exists today. In reality the current State of Palestine is represented only by the PLO, which has never controlled Gaza, not is it supported by most Gazans.

China is an interesting comparison though. Hypothetically if the PRC wanted to join the ICC, would the ICC understand that as including Taiwan, regardless of what the ROC or the people of Taiwan wanted? If so, that seems like a bad situation made possible by China's leverage, and not something the international community should try to replicate with Palestine.