to replace it with something less structurally biased against the global south right?They’re gonna replace the old and slow
process with a more streamlined and expedient one. It’s just 
doing colosseum style thumb up/down system.
Previously they were threatening judged and now they’re trying to dismantle the whole court system. All that on top of the “Hague Invasion Act”. Basically crickets from western press. Rules based order or whatever…
“Venezuela” - viceroy Marco Rubio, Imperial Overlord of the Venezuelan Territories
Gee, I sure do wonder why Venezuela withdrew.
the icc is still investigating venezuela for successfully resisting the us empire’s attempt to coup maduro.
i worked in an international body which was supposed to be a rules-based way to resolve conflict (wrt water) without war. And why anyone would ever cooperate with the US is beyond me. The US is the most duplicitous garbage country running, and the State Department are a whole other level of that. It’s all just running cover for international finance - why even pretend there’s statecraft in it? When the US is involved in international efforts, they stop being about achieving collaborative goals and become a farce meant to solely appease the schoolyard bully. There’s talking out of both sides of one’s mouth, then there’s the eldritch abomination of the US, talking out of infinite sides of infinite mouths
the icc is interesting because of this – the us empire has always been hostile towards it.
“I’m done playing with you…”
Abolishing the ICC guarantees WW3. It is a lynchpin of possible rule-enforcement avenues that prevents total international conflict. By providing the individualisation of guilt its existence functions to prevent civilisational guilt and civilisational revenge enacted based on a lack of codified enforcement options.
It is far from perfect but its existence is incredibly important to prevent party hour.
not really. It’s just some random international body that doesn’t do much.
It is one of the only non-military enforcement tools that exists to prevent wiping out civilisations. It offloads acts committed by one civilisation on another onto the leadership who take the blame for the actions, preventing one civilisation from demanding accountability of the entirety of another civilisation.
You remove this function from the global framework and you go back to Nation A saying Nation B is evil and its people must be completely and totally wiped out. Which of course Israel is already doing but there is an ICC warrant out for his arrest and that can be enforced if he does go anywhere that’s signed to the ICC.
It also prevents collective responsibility, which is what occurred post-ww1, when the War Guilt Clause was made against Germany. A major component of ww2 occurring.
This is not to say that these things do not occur outside the framework of the ICC but its existence does have an impact on those signed to it compared to the world prior to many of the frameworks that were built post-ww2 specifically to try and mitigate what was happening before. A break down of international frameworks will lead us back to that world.
Well the main problem is that it’s a liberal institution that is very heavy on De Jure, but very light De Facto.
Neoliberal order is all about ideas and guarding capital. It’s perfectly okay with certain types of mass murder (Like Sanctions) instead of enforcing mutual-cooperation across the board. I’m not saying it has absolutely 0 merit, but we need to get off our high horse and realize there’s no such thing as Enlightened Despots who have a moment of conscience and decided to establish some tools of justice, that’s bullshit. It was a moment of crisis and they had to budge to stabilize, a concession, which is as easily taken away as it is given.
For the world to change material relationships have to change.
You remove this function from the global framework and you go back to Nation A saying Nation B is evil and its people must be completely and totally wiped out.
This was exactly what the ICC was for. It was jokingly referred to as the International Colonial Court. It prosecuted its first white person about 5 years ago. It was used to enforce liberalism based “justice”.
You might be confusing the ICJ with the ICC
They did issue an arrest warning against Netanyahu and Galant.
This. There’s only one thing holding us back from World War 3: Mutually Assured Destruction.
ICC is an US bludgeon against designated enemies, if you look at the list of people they accused you will see mostly Africans and Russians, but no US or West European perpetrators of the numerous crimes against humanity they commit. It’s also a meaningless kangaroo court that don’t have any real legitimacy or support. It only gained some fame after it accused Putin and now with the Netanyahu.
US acting against it is just reflexive turbozionism and typical Trump tantrum, similar to the one that ended USAID, despite both being US tools for dominating the global south.
similar to the one that ended USAID, despite both being US tools for dominating the global south.
This. Which is why this is ultimately a self-sabotaging move for the US empire as it arrogantly abandons its liberal-imperialist tools of soft-power which cannot be effectively replaced with pure threats and bullying. There is a reason why the much smarter imperialists of the past established these institutions.
The propaganda power of the pretense of a liberal “rules based order” that existed the past should not be underestimated, and anti-imperialists should celebrate the destruction of the institutions propping up that illusion and the unveiling of the West’s desperate, naked and moribund imperialism.
only if it has legitimacy and imprisoning netanyahu would be a good start towards gaining that legitimacy.
