[lysace]

USA has been very hostile to the ICC since way before Trump.

The ICC was created in 1998 when Bill Clinton was president of the USA. He never ratified the Rome treaty. And then GW, Obama, Trump and Biden didn't either.

Very few americans batted an eye as far as I could tell. Your are after all by definition exceptional. (/s)

[tharne]

This is not a U.S. specific issue. Once you strip away all of the formalities, titles, and ceremonies, you'll realize there's no such thing as international law, at least not in any meaningful sense of the word.

The law, by definition is a rule backed up by the use of force, specifically state-sanctioned violence. If you write a law but do not have the ability to use a sufficient amount violence to enforce it when needed, you don't have a law at all, you just have a suggestion around how you'd like people and countries to behave.

The only way you could ever have anything resembling "international law", would be to have some sort of global military or police force capable of exerting enough violence to ensure that the law is followed, and I'm not even sure how such a thing would work.

[lukan]

There is international law. It is made up of all the treaties the big and small powers implemented together. But yes, not much is left now, but I would argue before Bush and 9/11 .. it was in a way better shape.

Global military is not necessary, just consensus to enforce it.

Practical example, there is no EU military, but there surely are EU laws EU members have to follow.

[stackskipton]

>Practical example, there is no EU military, but there surely are EU laws EU members have to follow.

EU has other levers to enforce compliance like ejection from Eurozone or Schengen Area.

Global military is required to enforce it because biggest stick wins. Many countries thinks Russia should be removed from Ukraine but no one has stepped up to provide the military to do so, ergo, in violation of international law they remain.

[lukan]

"Many countries thinks Russia should be removed from Ukraine but no one has stepped up to provide the military to do so, ergo, in violation of international law they remain."

I would argue, or rather I know many people from poorer countries argue, that why should they care that russia violates international law etc. if the US blatantly ignored it when they invaded Iraq? In other words, it is the same international like it is in the EU, just with less trust. Also the EU might fail (and there are challenges) if too many members act against the common interest. Then the enforcement will fail and so will all of EU.

(also, with international support and china not backing russia ... it would have worked without military involvement. Then the sanctioned would have worked. So ... some countries are just happy for the cheap bargain for russian oil)

[lysace]

Trade is a vector, obviously.

[bawolff]

> The only way you could ever have anything resembling "international law", would be to have some sort of global military or police force capable of exerting enough violence to ensure that the law is followed, and I'm not even sure how such a thing would work.

I'd push back a little bit on this. Much international law is just based on recipricol alturism. Chemical weapons are illegal. Why? Because they are a pain, and it sucks for both sides when they are used, so both sides have an interest in banning them.

I know its a hard cry from hard enforcement (to be clear hard enforcement does happen sometimes. E.g. UN interventions or even the ICC), but soft power is not nothing.

Its more like the sort of thing like how if you are a rude party guest you dont get invited to the. Sure its not the same as cops. At the same time most party guests are reasonably polite as a result of this pressure.

I know its not much, but i dont think we should count this out either.

[epistasis]

> Bill Clinton was president of the USA. He never ratified the Rome treaty. And then GW, Obama, Trump and Biden didn't either.

Small point of order, but it is the Senate that ratifies treaties and not presidents. The Senate is heavily biased to overrepresent rural areas, which tend to be very conservative, and only 40% of senators can stop any ratification. The ICC has been the subject of massive amounts of conspiracy theories and misinformation in conservative media, so there's approximately zero chance that it could ever be ratified, unless the Senate's structure was made more representative of the people of the US rather than a conspiracy-minded subset.

If the Senate was a democratic representation of the will of the US it would not be hard to ratify the treaty.

[lysace]

Fair. Clinton signed it on his last day in office but didn't submit it to the senate for ratification. Seems like he wanted it both ways.

[epistasis]

You're probably very right on that, Clinton listened to Kissinger on foreign policy and somebody like Kissinger is very much at risk if the US follows international law.

[chvid]

No one thought the US would get this insane.

[perihelions]

> "The American Service-Members' Protection Act, known informally as the Hague Invasion Act[1] [sic] (ASPA, Title 2 of Pub. L. 107–206 (text) (PDF), H.R. 4775, 116 Stat. 820, enacted August 2, 2002) is"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...

[bawolff]

I dont know, when bush threatened to invade the netherlands over the ICC, that was pretty insane, and in some ways worse than sanctions.

[chvid]

Sure. But no one thought it, or anything like it, would actually happened.