You still have an org that is, to public perception, picking and choosing when they have jurisdiction and don’t… and it almost always seems aligned with how influential the country in question is. They are fundamentally lawyers so I am sure there is a document with all of these corner cases written out but that really doesn’t change the de facto of it.
And on the chance they DO decide they have jurisdiction? It just means that bibbi has to be careful about where he goes on holiday.
At its core, the ICC creates an illusion of justice when there is none. Which makes it a self serving farce that serves the interests of those who control them (which, ironically, includes the US, as you yourself point out).
If giving them more money solves it, cool. I’ll believe it when I see it. Because it is still the same fundamental issue with basically any international peacekeeping org: They only have power when they are the proxy of a, generally imperialist, power. But it creates a fairy tale that justice will be served and there is accountability when there really isn’t any.
They don’t decide jurisdiction, it’s already clear what their jurisdiction is (i.e. signatory states and others).
Sorry but you’ve shared a lot of emotional responses with very little in the way of facts - sometimes even complete inaccuracies. To be frank, I’m reading a lot of ignorance and assumptions rather than understanding. If that’s how you base your opinions then there’s not much point in engagement.
And none of that changes anything.
You still have an org that is, to public perception, picking and choosing when they have jurisdiction and don’t… and it almost always seems aligned with how influential the country in question is. They are fundamentally lawyers so I am sure there is a document with all of these corner cases written out but that really doesn’t change the de facto of it.
And on the chance they DO decide they have jurisdiction? It just means that bibbi has to be careful about where he goes on holiday.
At its core, the ICC creates an illusion of justice when there is none. Which makes it a self serving farce that serves the interests of those who control them (which, ironically, includes the US, as you yourself point out).
If giving them more money solves it, cool. I’ll believe it when I see it. Because it is still the same fundamental issue with basically any international peacekeeping org: They only have power when they are the proxy of a, generally imperialist, power. But it creates a fairy tale that justice will be served and there is accountability when there really isn’t any.
They don’t decide jurisdiction, it’s already clear what their jurisdiction is (i.e. signatory states and others).
Sorry but you’ve shared a lot of emotional responses with very little in the way of facts - sometimes even complete inaccuracies. To be frank, I’m reading a lot of ignorance and assumptions rather than understanding. If that’s how you base your opinions then there’s not much point in engagement.