Well, I’m not a fan of analogies, but kind of, but in addition to asking them to sign up, all the biggest companies with the highest valuations got to sit it out, but retained powers to impose it on smaller companies that aren’t friends of theirs, and to step in and protect their friends from being subject to your hypothetical fair tax treaty.
Not really. The ICC mostly doesn't prosecute heads of states. Recent events are kind of unusual relative to the historical role. Historically ICC mostly went after rebel groups.
Think of the treaty as more of an extradition scheme. Its also a bit of an insurance policy - its an incentive not to commit international crimes against/on territory of member states, because it becomes much harder to evade justice.
There is also an element of symbolism to it, of what type of country you want to be.
The head of the ICC, Karim Khan issued an arrest warrant for Putin in 2023[1], so of course, Russia has issued an arrest warrant for him.
A year goes by, and the government of the world's other large rogue state responded thusly, to the ICC's consideration of arrest warrants for both Netanyahu and Hamas leaders:
> On 24 April 2024, Khan was sent a letter signed by 12 Republican U.S. senators[c] threatening him and other UN jurists and their families with personal consequences if the ICC were to seek an international arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu or other members of the Israeli government. The letter cited the American Service-Members' Protection Act – known informally as "The Hague Invasion Act"[42] – which specifically includes "all means".[43][44] The signatories said they would view any arrest warrant as "a threat not only to Israel's sovereignty, but also to the sovereignty of the United States". They threatened: "Target Israel and we will target you", and that any further action would "end all American support for the ICC" and "exclude [Khan and his associates and employees] and their families from the United States". The letter ended: "You have been warned."[45]
nimish|9 months ago
It requires a given state to allow it to operate and have jurisdiction. That's a political act through and through.
The US doesn't recognize it anymore so it's baffling why they didn't move to non US equipment.
tguvot|9 months ago
edit. i believe the migration was initiated and implemented by the current icc prosecutor. amazing absence of a foresight.
SllX|9 months ago
bawolff|9 months ago
Think of the treaty as more of an extradition scheme. Its also a bit of an insurance policy - its an incentive not to commit international crimes against/on territory of member states, because it becomes much harder to evade justice.
There is also an element of symbolism to it, of what type of country you want to be.
vkou|9 months ago
A year goes by, and the government of the world's other large rogue state responded thusly, to the ICC's consideration of arrest warrants for both Netanyahu and Hamas leaders:
> On 24 April 2024, Khan was sent a letter signed by 12 Republican U.S. senators[c] threatening him and other UN jurists and their families with personal consequences if the ICC were to seek an international arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu or other members of the Israeli government. The letter cited the American Service-Members' Protection Act – known informally as "The Hague Invasion Act"[42] – which specifically includes "all means".[43][44] The signatories said they would view any arrest warrant as "a threat not only to Israel's sovereignty, but also to the sovereignty of the United States". They threatened: "Target Israel and we will target you", and that any further action would "end all American support for the ICC" and "exclude [Khan and his associates and employees] and their families from the United States". The letter ended: "You have been warned."[45]