General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: They Got Away With It. [View all]Solly Mack
(97,226 posts)The Court can exercise jurisdiction only when: the accused is a national of a state party (ICC member), if the alleged crime took place on the territory of a state party (member state) and/or if referred to the Court by the United Nations Security Council. The UNSC has 5 permanent members (US, China, UK, France, Russian Federation) - any of which can veto an action. So...the US would veto any such undertaking.
A state not party to the ICC can still request the court to investigate by accepting the jurisdiction of the court. How likely is that to happen?
There is still universal jurisdiction, which would allow for other countries prosecuting America's war criminals. If they would just do it. The CAT (Convention Against Torture) requires universal jurisdiction of its signatories.
The US rejects UI, claiming fear of "political prosecutions" by other states. However, the US does claim the right to exercise universal jurisdiction in civil torts for violations of human rights, etc.. Go figure.
The biggest issue is no one (who can) is demanding prosecutions.
Also, we have to factor in all the hypocrisy. Sadly. (Nuremberg-like Trials for some, not for others)