It cannot be a war crime if there is no war. There is no declaration of war and no approval of Congress. The ICC classified these strikes as crimes against humanity.
Any time a state uses armed force against another state (and sometimes against other entities), there is a war in which there can be war crimes.
> There is no declaration of war
War is war whether or not it is formally declared. (And the Trump Administration has described that it is fighting a war against Venezuela for months, though it has characterized Venezuela as the aggressor.) This was, among other things, the explicit premise of the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act months ago.
> and no approval of Congress.
That might arguably make any war also a violation of domestic law, but from the standpoint of international law it isn’t particularly a meaningful argument against their being a war.
> The ICC classified these strikes as crimes against humanity.
No, an individual who used to be a prosecutor with the ICC, acting as a private individual, described them that way.
(Under U.S. law, I do believe they are war crimes given they're an abuse of war powers, whether exercised legally or not.)
> ICC classified these strikes as crimes against humanity
No, it did not. A "former chief prosecutor at the International Criminal Court (ICC)" told the BBC "US air strikes on alleged drug smuggling boats would be treated under international law as crimes against humanity" [1].
I haven't seen the ICC take an official position on any of this, which is expected, since it's a judicial body that grinds deliberately.
"War crimes can only be committed during times of armed conflict, either international or non-international, as understood under international humanitarian law. While it is necessary that the crime in question was committed during an armed conflict, this is in itself not sufficient: the crime must be sufficiently linked to the armed conflict. This so-called nexus requirement is satisfied if the armed conflict played a substantial role in the perpetrator’s decision to commit the crime, his or her ability to commit it, or the manner in which the crime was committed.
In order to define an act as a war crime, this act must, besides having nexus to an armed conflict, be a serious violation of international humanitarian law and entail individual criminal responsibility."
People seem to think there’s some clever little gap between war crime law, US domestic law, and human rights law that mean a government can just kill people who pose no immediate threat and without any establishment of guilt.
There is not.
The Trump admin wants to say they’re invaders therefore we don’t need Congressional authorization, but they’re actually irregulars therefore we don’t need to follow Geneva, but they’re actually terrorists therefore…
lazide|3 months ago
dragonwriter|3 months ago
Any time a state uses armed force against another state (and sometimes against other entities), there is a war in which there can be war crimes.
> There is no declaration of war
War is war whether or not it is formally declared. (And the Trump Administration has described that it is fighting a war against Venezuela for months, though it has characterized Venezuela as the aggressor.) This was, among other things, the explicit premise of the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act months ago.
> and no approval of Congress.
That might arguably make any war also a violation of domestic law, but from the standpoint of international law it isn’t particularly a meaningful argument against their being a war.
> The ICC classified these strikes as crimes against humanity.
No, an individual who used to be a prosecutor with the ICC, acting as a private individual, described them that way.
JumpCrisscross|3 months ago
Is this true? Legitimate question.
(Under U.S. law, I do believe they are war crimes given they're an abuse of war powers, whether exercised legally or not.)
> ICC classified these strikes as crimes against humanity
No, it did not. A "former chief prosecutor at the International Criminal Court (ICC)" told the BBC "US air strikes on alleged drug smuggling boats would be treated under international law as crimes against humanity" [1].
I haven't seen the ICC take an official position on any of this, which is expected, since it's a judicial body that grinds deliberately.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd9kgqwnk8wo
c420|3 months ago
In order to define an act as a war crime, this act must, besides having nexus to an armed conflict, be a serious violation of international humanitarian law and entail individual criminal responsibility."
https://www.rulac.org/legal-framework/international-criminal...
estearum|3 months ago
There is not.
The Trump admin wants to say they’re invaders therefore we don’t need Congressional authorization, but they’re actually irregulars therefore we don’t need to follow Geneva, but they’re actually terrorists therefore…
All of it is nonsense.