[NietTim]

It's always been an odd choice to build infra on services owned by companies from a country which doesn't recognise the ICC and, even worse, has a special law that if any of US service men were ever tried there, they will invade the Hague. (gotta love the good guys)

[ceejayoz]

Dropping a cite for the last bit, as it's so goofy people tend to think it's made up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...

[embedding-shape]

It's a great example from 2002 that demonstrates that while the US have ramped up its isolationism efforts lately, it has been moving in the same direction for a long time, so what's happening now shouldn't be so surprising.

[excalibur]

Passed in August 2002, how very Patriot Act of them.

[hersko]

I don't understand the whole concept. Why would any country recognize a law above their own?

[dragonwriter]

Because they’ve already entered into treaties making the offenses involved matters of universal jutisdiction which any state can prosecute their citizens for, and as a State Party to the Rome Statute, they would have more influence over the fairness and process of the ICC than they would over any national system outside of their own.

Also, because they are tired of the diplomatic cost and expense of working with other countries to set up ad hoc tribunals for particular conflicts and want to get the job done once and properly. (That's actually why the US was one of the leaders of the effort that produced the ICC, even though it did a U-turn against it at the last minute.)

[ceejayoz]

Because borders aren't hermetically sealed?

Same reason individuals tend to want to live in a society and the rules that come with it.

[badgersnake]

It’s like any international treaty, you agree to it because there’s something in it for you in return for signing it.

In this case, there’s a straightforward benefit to it in that it could be used to prosecute crimes against the US and US citizens, and soft benefits e.g. of the US being seen a a paragon of lawfulness and trust. There’s likely more, these are just what I could think of immediately.

[hackingonempty]

Why would any state enter into a treaty with a state that doesn't recognize them? Diplomacy requires it so it has been in the USA Constitution since the beginning:

Article VI, Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

[wongarsu]

Same reason most people prefer living in a society with laws: you are subject to laws, but so is everyone else, and provided the laws are beneficial ("just") you are overall better off.

On a national level I agree not to steal, and in return nobody else is allowed to steal from me. On the ICC level my country agrees not to genocide anyone, and in return others aren't allowed to genocide either

[greggoB]

Seems like the US is very involved in others' business for such an "independent" spirit.

E.g. Switzerland (a country I'd argue as having a far more genuine independent spirit) was labeled as a currency manipulator by the US [0], despite the designation being fairly arbitrary, and you know, her being her own country (and so surely subject to her own laws).

What you're describing as "independence" looks a lot more like "rules for thee are not rules for me", which the US just happens to have the privelage of preaching due to its preeminent position in the world.

[0] https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/business/switzerland-branded-as...

[Gathering6678]

For a country built on dead bodies of independent natives, the last sentence seems disingenuous at best.

[nbngeorcjhe]

yes we independently decide to invade other countries for no good reason and independently decide to extrajudicially murder people the president doesn't like, I'm so very glad

[withinboredom]

The reason has nothing to do with "independence". It is that the US has the death penalty for this, and they want to kill people who commit war crimes.

At least that was the reason I was given in the US military. YMMV

[ceejayoz]

The US happily enforces its rules on other nations on a regular basis.

[saubeidl]

No man is an island, and no country is either. You live in an international community, whether you like it or not. You can choose to be a rogue state, but it doesn't reflect well on you.

[lingrush4]

Why would the US choose to cede authority to the ICC here? If the US wishes to discipline its service members, they still can and do. Under no circumstances should any country allow a foreign entity to decide what its military can and cannot do.

[ceejayoz]

> Why would the US choose to cede authority to the ICC here?

For the same reason as any other treaty - the corresponding benefits.

> If the US wishes to discipline its service members, they still can and do.

That's not what the ICC is for. The ICC is for when a country won't do so when they should be.

> Under no circumstances should any country allow a foreign entity to decide what its military can and cannot do.

The US has a very long history of telling other foreign entities what they can and cannot do.

[dragonwriter]

> If the US wishes to discipline its service members, they still can and do.

Its not “service members” that are the usual defendants at the ICC.

[nielsbot]

Why have an ICC at all then?

If US soldiers are (once again) committing war crimes, will the US do anything? What’s the recourse for the victims of those crimes? Should there not be one?

[MangoToupe]

Well they also don't want their own citizens to have any say. So whose interests in the end does our military actually answer to?