[tguvot]

well, there are ICC warrants. They do ignore diplomatic immunity. And opinion of many people that, for example, Netanyahu should be at least arrested if he lands in Europe and at most "somebody" should send extraction team to kidnap him

[rkeene2]

It seems like we should not invade another sovereign country unless we are at war -- a weighty process we should undergo because it's how the will of the people manifest in power.

The US isn't a participant to the ICC, so I'm not sure what exactly your implication is... ?

I do not think we should invade Israel and kidnap their leader. I believe the people of that country should self-govern within their sovereign rights. I don't think China should invade the US and kidnap it's leader. I believe the people of the US should self-govern within their sovereign rights. I don't believe the US should invade Venezuela and kidnap their leader. I believe the people of Venezuela should self-govern within their sovereign rights.

[tguvot]

i was pointing out that diplomatic immunity (of head of state) that you mention is trashed by ICC warrants (in countries who are party to it. i.e. good chunk of europe).

so, in the moment that something as basic as diplomatic immunity can be violated by warrants for investigation (not for trial), invading another country to arrest somebody based on warrants that you had issued domestically is not that big of leap

[rkeene2]

You are talking about a after a country has decided that they want to participate in the this process by ratifying their participation intentionally. How does this relate to a unilateral invasion ?

[tguvot]

Vienna Convention (1961): This treaty standardized the rules, making diplomatic immunity a binding obligation for its over 190 signatory nations

And then comes ICC (via Rome statue, ratified by 125 countries and half a dozen of them in process of withdrawal) and trashes with it warrants diplomatic immunity.

So in case international law/treaty from 1961 is all of sudden not binding, why wouldn't uniliteral invasion (actually it looks like it more of arrest operation) (which is probably prohibited by some other international treaties) not be ok ?

[rkeene2]

I do not understand the point you are making. You cite a treaty that countries explicitly agree to protect diplomats while they are guests in another country -- I'm not sure what relationship this has with one sovereign nation using force to rendition someone from another country.

The only country that has agreed to the terms of the ICC here is Venezuela -- but there is no ICC arrest warrant for anyone involved, nor is the US acting on behalf of the ICC nor does it have any authority to do so.

The invasion (which was required to perform the arrest, since it was within the territory) was definitely an invasion and morally wrong.

As noted several times, there are many ways that this could have been done that are in accordance with civil society it. It wasn't, and that is bad.

[tguvot]

my point is that diplomatic immunity is international law. signatories to rome statue said that they will violate it (diplomatic immunity of Israeli head of state) because of icc warrant.

this is violation of international law that multiple countries openly stated that they will perform.

essentially it means that international law is not binding and selectively enforced. this is slippery slope.

if you can ignore vienna convention why not ignore whatever other part of international law that prohibits invasion ?

PS. UK and France just bombed ISIS in Syria. Is it also invasion and morally wrong ?