19 comments

  • sdcfgy 24 minutes ago
    As an outside observer, the US administration is an embarrassment to the country. You're never going to come back from this. Well done.
    • jimbokun 8 minutes ago
      Oh, we are well aware.

      Pretty sure even a lot of the current President's voters are slowly coming to this same realization. I predict soon in casual conversation almost no one will have voted for this man.

    • Betelbuddy 13 minutes ago
      The US is an embarrassment to the Planet.
      • vrganj 9 minutes ago
        I wish it was just that. Existential threat is the term I'd use at this point.
    • DFHippie 9 minutes ago
      Most Americans agree with you at this point.
      • sdcfgy 7 minutes ago
        Just on the record I sympathise with you. Wish it could have been different for the sake of the good people over there.

        (I am from the country that voted to leave the EU...)

    • rfgplk 17 minutes ago
      The International Criminal Court is a farce. How can you tell other sovereign nation what is a "crime" or what "is not a crime"? It has literally zero authority to decide such matters.
      • chmod775 9 minutes ago
        You appear to be confused. Anyone can decide anything, the question is whether it is in their power to enforce their decisions.

        Saying that they don't have authority to make a decision implies that there's some universal set of rules that internationally lays down what anyone's authority is - precisely the kind of thing you appear to be opposed to, because such a set of rules would need a court!

        • sobellian 7 minutes ago
          > Anyone can decide anything, the question is whether it is on their power to enforce their decisions.

          You seem to have arrived at a suitable definition of "authority"

      • sdcfgy 12 minutes ago
        Well a lot of international diplomacy depends on trade and associated meetings. If someone is sanctioned by the ICC then they can't move money or visit any member countries.

        That is authority if you like it or not.

      • a_paddy 15 minutes ago
        Germany in the 30/40s, no notes?
      • jcranmer 11 minutes ago
        The treaties a country signs up to is a good start on defining what constitutes crimes.
      • mfost 16 minutes ago
        It has as much if not more authority to judge crimes commited in the member countries that gave it that authority than Trump has to sanction them in the first place.
      • wilg 12 minutes ago
        Quite simply because you are allowed to set up international organizations by treaty.
      • vrganj 15 minutes ago
        How can a nation decide what is and isn't a crime? It's all made up, a "farce" to use your diction. We just choose to go along and build these institutions because living in lawlessness is worse.

        Why should we believe in the fantasy of the nation state, but not in the fantasy of international law? It's all just social constructs to create an ordered society that stops the worst excesses.

  • medina 20 minutes ago
    The sanctions announcement coincided with a former ICC judge, Navanethem “Navi” Pillay, being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her contributions to enlarging the scope and impact of international law. -- https://thehill.com/policy/international/6138693-rubio-impos...
  • cromka 29 minutes ago
    > America never joined the court. We don’t need it. And we don’t want it.

    Wow, so tough, much decision

    • jimbokun 7 minutes ago
      The new GOP motto!
  • 1a527dd5 7 minutes ago
    I believe the term is 'superpower suicide'. Amazing to see it in real-time.
    • qarl 3 minutes ago
      Is that really a term?

      Regardless - I think it's safe to assume this isn't happening in a vacuum - there are a number of world players who profit from the collapse of the U.S. And all this trouble started the moment they could use the internet to feed stupid Americans their stupid propaganda.

  • mendym 0 minutes ago
    Does this mean that Microsoft or Google can no longer offer services (like mail/office/search etc..) to the ICC? Similar to what happened with the ICC prosecutor last year?
  • pluc 17 minutes ago
    Why stop there? Let's do all other collaborative groups that don't put the US and their corrupted agenda first. You wanna be left alone and we don't want to have you so just make the calls.
  • noitpmeder 28 minutes ago
    The article is (probably purposefully) unclear of what actually is happening here... what sanctions are being applied, to whom, and to what effect?
  • SillyUsername 0 minutes ago
    I'm confused, if you're not a criminal, what have you got to hide?

    See the similarity here...?

  • WhyNotHugo 14 minutes ago
    Meanwhile, the EU is working on further entrenching payment and identity into American service providers (mainly: Apple and Google).

    Do these sanctions also affect anyone working at the ICC?

  • hypfer 4 minutes ago
    I was getting rather tired of SV opinions shaping all of our daily lives far outside the SV, but I did not expect that this would be how that would slowly end.

    Not a week passes without the US giving other nations very good reasons to cut out any dependencies on anything under their jurisdiction.

    Is California now panicking and exiting the United states? That would be really funny.

  • yzydserd 25 minutes ago
    If you choose not to join a club, you don’t need to try to “cripple its ability to operate”.
    • maratc 12 minutes ago
      This is not a perfect analogy: when I choose not to join a club, I have a reasonable expectation of that club not declaring me its member, and not fighting me for failing to follow the rules that the club established.
      • monocasa 2 minutes ago
        If you go to someone else's house who is a member of that club and has agreed to follow its rules, it's not crazy to think you'd be held to them there.

        Which is all the ICC can do to nations that aren't signatories to the Rome statute.

    • gunslinger_meta 12 minutes ago
      You do if they're bullying you for not joining.
      • mfost 8 minutes ago
        Just like the US is bullying them for let me check: dare to try perosnally having a bank account and do online payments.
  • rbanffy 55 minutes ago
    That's the kind of thing only a rogue state would do.
  • pu_pe 8 minutes ago
    So just when the whole Greenland debacle seemed to be settled, it's time to create another rift with the EU.
  • curiousllama 15 minutes ago
    Some context per the below articles, and as a general IR nerd.

    The proximal cause of the sanctions appears to be that the Nobel Peace Prize was won by a former ICC judge, and Trump covets it.

    The distal cause is that the US never joined the ICC, arguing that US political & military leaders should not be subject to a binding foreign jurisdiction. This is a longstanding disagreement, with bipartisan consensus in DC.

    Putting pressure on this disagreement, the ICC has a warrants out for Netanyahu and others that the current administration views as a political & military ally.

    My interpretation is basically: this is a petty move about the Nobel, which builds on a long-simmering disagreement about the role of international law.

    https://apnews.com/article/us-icc-trump-rubio-4ea3555403e3c6... https://www.reuters.com/world/us-imposes-sanctions-internati...

    • bediger4000 0 minutes ago
      Isn't the concept of "bipartisan" anything suspicious today? Republicans turned away from most of the "movement conservative" principles in 2017. Rule of law personal responsibility, small local government, free markets, all either ignored or only paid lip service.

      Previous bipartisan consensus thus means nothing. Bipartisan consensus now means everyone capitulated to Trump's whim of the day.

  • resters 26 minutes ago
    It's hard to tell which executive orders are meant as a joke and which are meant as sincere (but horrible) policy perspectives.

    I suspect this one was actually meant as a joke, although it is not remotely funny in my opinion.

    Someone in Trump's orbit who writes them gets an immature charge out of trolling people.

    So far my prediction about Trump have sadly been correct: The US is getting weaker and poorer every day.

    • curiousllama 5 minutes ago
      A lot of these weird actions actually build on long-simmering disagreements. Which is weird - like if a state governor got drunk and tried to shut down immigration enforcement.

      Is this a legitimate policy decision? Maybe - but it sure reads like the ranting of a drunk.

    • jimbokun 5 minutes ago
      A world in which official statements from the US State Department and a joke are indistinguishable.
    • jimt1234 15 minutes ago
      > ...gets an immature charge out of trolling people.

      That describes MAGA perfectly.

  • bflesch 27 minutes ago
    I don't understand why this is such an urgent topic. Is ICC currently prosecuting an US citizen?
    • medina 21 minutes ago
      The sanctions announcement coincided with a former ICC judge, Navanethem “Navi” Pillay, being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her contributions to enlarging the scope and impact of international law. -- https://thehill.com/policy/international/6138693-rubio-impos...
    • jeroenhd 5 minutes ago
      The Americans got upset first because the ICC wants to take action against the Israeli genocide of the Palestinian people.

      But now it just happens to be that their president didn't get the Nobel peace price. The person who did was a judge on the ICC.

      It could be a complete coincidence, of course. I mean, if it isn't, it would reinforce the notion of the USA being a clown of a country, which I'm sure Americans would prevent.

    • vrganj 25 minutes ago
    • actionfromafar 25 minutes ago
      An Israeli citizen probably.
  • vrganj 26 minutes ago
    Yikes.

    Another match lighting US soft power on fire

    The last round of ICC sanctions got everyone here talking about tech sovereignty, now France and Germany are rolling their own productivity suites, the Netherlands are rolling their own NixOS distro, etc etc.

    This is just going to further hurt US interests. Biting the hand that feeds, burning down their own empire out of hubris. And Americans voted for this! Twice!

    It's time the EU rolls out the Blocking Statute [0] to counteract this nonsense.

    [0] https://finance.ec.europa.eu/eu-and-world/open-strategic-aut...

    • actionfromafar 23 minutes ago
      I have read here on this here HN, that "soft power" does not in fact exist, and therefore cannot be lost!

      So, good news I guess. Everything is fine. Trump is the best president ever in the history of the world.

      • conmod278 13 minutes ago
        There is cantillon effect happening here with respect to trust in govts. media and institutions in general. People are becoming distrustful but slowly. Those who are on internet a lot know about these topics in depth but people farther away take time to adjust to New Reality.
  • HackerThemAll 29 minutes ago
    Will Trump be able to change the law so that he becomes a lifetime dictator of USA?
    • jimbokun 3 minutes ago
      He will try but even the Supreme Court has shown they are willing to place limits on his power, ruling against him in some cases. So I don't think he has a pathway to bypassing the 22nd Amendment.
      • monocasa 0 minutes ago
        I think that decision is still a bit in flux and won't truly be made until late 2027.
    • epgui 27 minutes ago
      At the end of the day, the law is what people agree it is… And people don’t seem to be too interested in keeping the lunatic in check.
      • resters 23 minutes ago
        It's truly bizarre. I think some of his supporters think that they are all in on the joke and that he doesn't mean half of it. But at this point there is zero evidence good faith, zero evidence of strategy. Just one odd PR stunt after another that someone can day trade on if they know about it a few hours in advance.
      • jimbokun 2 minutes ago
        The Supreme Court doesn't seem too interested in letting the 22nd Amendment slide.

        Even they have their limits.

    • wg0 25 minutes ago
      Putin would hope so because there's no other way.
    • actionfromafar 20 minutes ago
      He does not seem to care much for laws in general. Why change them when you can just ignore them? Much less work.