Comment by bawolff
2 hours ago
> One big issue is that uninvolved member states are agreeing to enforce ICC warrants up front.
Extradition treaties are common among soverign states. This is no different.
> For example members states have refused to arrest Putin despite having a theoretical legal obligation to do so.
Sometimes you have to bow to realism. Nobody is arresting the head of state of a nuclear armed power. That is a death wish.
Also while the idea of throwing aside soverign immunity for international crimes has quite a bit of precedent, especially for multinational tribunals, its not exactly as on firm ground as the rest of this.
> The ICC has issued warrants for individuals for alleged crimes committed in at least two states that reject ICC jurisdiction, those states being Afghanistan and Israel.
The jurisdictional theory for the Israeli nationals is that the crime took place in palestine which is a member state. If a trial took place im sure they would try and argue that palestine is not really a state, not competent to join the rome statute, or failing that, its territorial extent does not include gaza. It would be up to a judge to rule on that
Afghanistan joined signed the treaty. They have not done the proper procedure to withdraw.
> Nobody is arresting the head of state of a nuclear armed power.
So what's the point of issuing arrest warrants to heads of nuclear armed powers like Russia/Israel then if they wouldn't get arrested?
> If a trial took place im sure they would try and argue that palestine is not really a state, not competent to join the rome statute, or failing that, its territorial extent does not include gaza.
If you go by the UN it's a non-member observer state. If you go by the de facto government of Gaza they(Hamas) clearly never signed the Rome statute.
> It would be up to a judge to rule on that
Well the real question is what judge even has the authority to rule on something like that, most sovereign states will give their own domestic courts authority above any external/foreign courts.
> Afghanistan joined signed the treaty.
The de jure government may have, but not the de facto government. The Palestine jurisdictional situation is even more confusing since they were never recognized by the UN or Israel as a full state.
> They have not done the proper procedure to withdraw.
They withdrew in practice since the ICC has no independent enforcement capability. Not that it means much anyways since even member states will regularly ignore what they signed.
It's a very strange situation where a courts rulings can be almost completely detached from the de facto jurisdiction on the ground. This whole strategy of asserting jurisdiction by the ICC without having any real enforcement capability makes it look like the ICC is making decisions that are totally detached from reality and undermines their own credibility.