Iraq is not a State Party to the Rome Statute (nor is it a nonparty that voluntarily acceded to ICC jurisdiction on its territory for the time in question), and therefore the ICC does not have jurisdiction on a territorial basis for war crimes in Iraq. The US is not a State Party to the Rome Statute, and therefore the ICC does not have jurisdiction on the basis of nationality over war crimes committed by Americans. It needs one or the other to exercise jurisdiction over war crimes. (The ICC did conduct an investigation of allegations of UK war crimes in Iraq, over which it would have jurisdiction as the UK is a State Party. ) [0]
Ukraine is also not a State Party to the Rome Statue, but has made a declaration accepting ICC jurisdiction for war crimes on its territory twice (first for crimes between 21 November 2013 to 22 February 2014 and then a second open-ended declaration covering the time period from 20 February 2014 onwards. As a result, the ICC has jurisdiction on a territorial basis for crimes committed within the territory of Ukraine from 21 November 2013 onwards.
> they didn’t do shit for Ukraine arming people in the donbas in 2014
Arming people within your sovereign territory is not a war crime. (Heck, arming people outside of your sovereign territory is also not a war crime.)
> they don’t do shit for the Israeli colony,
They have not yet reached the point of issuing warrants; they have opened investigations (delayed in part by the process of determining the extent of the court’s territorial jurisdiction given the nature of the situation) and made determinations that there is reasonable basis to believe that IDF, Hamas, and other forces in Palestine have committed specific enumerated war crimes. [1]
> but they do shit for Putin?
Russia in Ukraine has been rather unusually flagrant in its war crimes (largely, I would assume, because of the confidence they feel in their impunity.)
> They almost exclusively target africans, middle easterners, etc.
That's because the last major war in Europe (before the current round of Russian aggression) was before the ICC; the ICC was a follow-on to special ad hoc tribunals for individual situations, one of the most significant being the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, which targeted, almost exclusively, Europeans.
> Wonder why the ICC isn’t targeting anyone from france, britain, etc for Libya or Syria.
Because they’ve gotten no reports of such crimes? (Unlike the UK in Iraq, where they did, and performed an extensive investigation and report, ultimately concluding no basis for charges at the Court.)
lisasays|3 years ago
What on earth are you talking about? Specifically, with references please.
Kukumber|3 years ago
Everything is documented
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworl...
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-ukraine-tape-idUKBREA...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas_(2014%E2%80%9320...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-arms-speci...
https://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/01/world/iraq-sanctions-kill...
and many more
dragonwriter|3 years ago
Iraq is not a State Party to the Rome Statute (nor is it a nonparty that voluntarily acceded to ICC jurisdiction on its territory for the time in question), and therefore the ICC does not have jurisdiction on a territorial basis for war crimes in Iraq. The US is not a State Party to the Rome Statute, and therefore the ICC does not have jurisdiction on the basis of nationality over war crimes committed by Americans. It needs one or the other to exercise jurisdiction over war crimes. (The ICC did conduct an investigation of allegations of UK war crimes in Iraq, over which it would have jurisdiction as the UK is a State Party. ) [0]
Ukraine is also not a State Party to the Rome Statue, but has made a declaration accepting ICC jurisdiction for war crimes on its territory twice (first for crimes between 21 November 2013 to 22 February 2014 and then a second open-ended declaration covering the time period from 20 February 2014 onwards. As a result, the ICC has jurisdiction on a territorial basis for crimes committed within the territory of Ukraine from 21 November 2013 onwards.
> they didn’t do shit for Ukraine arming people in the donbas in 2014
Arming people within your sovereign territory is not a war crime. (Heck, arming people outside of your sovereign territory is also not a war crime.)
> they don’t do shit for the Israeli colony,
They have not yet reached the point of issuing warrants; they have opened investigations (delayed in part by the process of determining the extent of the court’s territorial jurisdiction given the nature of the situation) and made determinations that there is reasonable basis to believe that IDF, Hamas, and other forces in Palestine have committed specific enumerated war crimes. [1]
> but they do shit for Putin?
Russia in Ukraine has been rather unusually flagrant in its war crimes (largely, I would assume, because of the confidence they feel in their impunity.)
[0] https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/itemsDocuments/2...
[1] https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/itemsDocuments/2...
brwck|3 years ago
[deleted]
brwck|3 years ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter|3 years ago
That's because the last major war in Europe (before the current round of Russian aggression) was before the ICC; the ICC was a follow-on to special ad hoc tribunals for individual situations, one of the most significant being the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, which targeted, almost exclusively, Europeans.
> Wonder why the ICC isn’t targeting anyone from france, britain, etc for Libya or Syria.
Because they’ve gotten no reports of such crimes? (Unlike the UK in Iraq, where they did, and performed an extensive investigation and report, ultimately concluding no basis for charges at the Court.)