autotldr t1_jdswpif wrote
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 62%. (I'm a bot)
> Speaking at a press conference this Monday, March 20, Vasily Nebenzya, Russia's Permanent Representative to the UN, stated that Russia intends to return all of the children evacuated from the conflict zone to Ukraine when safe conditions are created there.
> The alleged movement of Ukrainian children from the conflict zones led to the International Criminal Court issuing an arrest warrant last Friday 17.
> He also pointed out that Russia was one of the nations that did not recognise the authority of the ICC. "We consider the very posing of the question outrageous and unacceptable, Russia, like a number of states, does not recognise the jurisdiction of this court and, accordingly, any decisions of this kind are null and void for the Russian Federation from the point of view of law", stated the Kremlin spokesman.
Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Russia^#1 Court^#2 stated^#3 decision^#4 children^#5
Dazzling-Ad4701 t1_jdt3192 wrote
their 'lack of recognition' is another meaningless russian canard. from the ICC's own website:
>Jurisdiction
The Court may exercise jurisdiction in a situation where genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes were committed on or after 1 July 2002 and:
the crimes were committed by a State Party national, or in the territory of a State Party, or in a State that has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court; or
the crimes were referred to the ICC Prosecutor by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) pursuant to a resolution adopted under chapter VII of the UN charter.
As of 17 July 2018, a situation in which an act of aggression would appear to have occurred could be referred to the Court by the Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, irrespective as to whether it involves States Parties or non-States Parties.
In the absence of a UNSC referral of an act of aggression, the Prosecutor may initiate an investigation on her own initiative or upon request from a State Party. The Prosecutor shall first ascertain whether the Security Council has made a determination of an act of aggression committed by the State concerned. Where no such determination has been made within six months after the date of notification to the UNSC by the Prosecutor of the situation, the Prosecutor may nonetheless proceed with the investigation, provided that the Pre-Trial Division has authorized the commencement of the investigation.
that's three separate ways the investigation and therefore the warrant are completely legitimate:
- ukraine accepted jurisdiction in or soon after 2014.
- MULTIPLE other state parties have made requests for investigation. i'm talking more than three dozen.
- the prosecutor can just nike it anyway, if they see fit.
Living-Walrus-2215 t1_jdv02u1 wrote
It seems you're conveniently ignoring the concept of state sovereignty.
Dazzling-Ad4701 t1_jdvdrad wrote
not sure of your point?
Living-Walrus-2215 t1_jdvtfzx wrote
my point is "A court saying they have jurisdiction over something doesn't give them jurisdiction over something", and "A sovereign nation is sovereign".
Dazzling-Ad4701 t1_jdw4c6z wrote
the last one lost me.
the first one: I guess you're right, in the sense that that's mostly what "rule of law" means. it means that a community of nations, in this instance, kind of have to agree these are the principles we will be governed/ will govern ourselves/each other by.
in this context a community of nations did agree, by signing the Rome treaty. Russia may not have signed, but they're able to read so they're well aware that the treaty exists and what its terms are.
So thats the jeopardy they took on by invading Ukraine and committing these actions there. Big shrug. Guess it hasn't been working out for them.
Living-Walrus-2215 t1_jdw5v9a wrote
>sovereignty
>noun
>Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state.
>Royal rank, authority, or power.
>Complete independence and self-government.
What this means is that Russia (and any other sovereign nation) has full power in relation to itself. The ICC has no more power or rights over it than some random farmer in Rwanda who never even heard of Russia.
The ICC (and any other court) has no jurisdiction over Russia (or any other country) other than whichever jurisdiction those countries allow it, to the extent they are allowing, and for as long as they are allowing.
It doesn't matter if Ukraine (or every single other person in the world that has ever existed or ever will exist) agrees that the ICC has jurisdiction because Russia does not, and when it comes to sovereign nations that is all it matters.
Dazzling-Ad4701 t1_jdwr8a9 wrote
yeah, that's what I figured you meant . it's actually you "conveniently ignoring" the factor of sovereignty since accepting it doesn't suit Russia's wants in this situation. and we all know what Russia is saying. "we're gonna do whatever we want, so fuck you."
well, they can try that and see how it flies. if you take this trajectory all the way to its hypothetical conclusion: someone arrests Putin's spindly little ass, along with whoever else; Russia declares war on the entire world because they're so special and precious etc; Armageddon.
in theory. in practice I don't think anyone can predict what will come of all this. Russia is acting like a shower of assholes, a significant part of the rest of the world is clearly determined to stand against it.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments