As the USA minister of defence, he is in all likelihood responsible for crimes against humanity/war crimes, for instance, the killing of people on small boats in the Caribbean, and the hundreds of school girls in Iran, to name just two cases. But who could sue him; it seems it is usually countries that do this, but could eg an organization of international lawyers do this? What would it take for an individual to get him sued? (Asking for a friend).
The US is not a member state of the ICC. In fact, when the ICC was being formed the US passed a law giving the president the right to “to use all means necessary and appropriate” to free certain people from the ICC and prohibits cooperation with the courts.
In addition to US politicians, the law explicitly names the government of Israel (and several other countries) as people covered under this law. I am always surprised when people act shocked that the US will not arrest Bibi.
So when the other person mentioned invading the Hauge if he is arrested, they were being quite literal.
Eta: the ICC will still announce charges against individuals from non member states if the charges stem from actions with member states. That is why they have made charges against Putin and Bibi.
2002, that’s when the USA took the real downturn, refusing to not only uphold the law, but make a law to actively prevent it.
While not 100% literally accurate I would argue the ICC is an extension of the UN, and the league of allied nations which has always been a rules for thee and not for me type situation. This law and the stance the US took in 2002 isn’t that much of a shift in the practical aspects of their international relations.
There was a shift, domestically, in how the US framed their place in the world though. I’d argue it started before that but it wasn’t so easy to claim benevolence the way military action in WW2 was framed. Imperialism was much more overt and visible to people in the states.
Not a lawyer, but the President being “authorized” to act doesn’t sound like they must. The next Democratic president could simply look the other way.
Besides, we’re in the era of Presidents being allowed to just ignore any inconvenient laws. Not that I think any plausible near-term Democrat president has the will to actually do this, but I’m willing to be surprised.
Whether or not a president is compelled to enforce it doesn’t change my stance.
The rule of law is a construct. People who control the use of force or access to resources can do whatever they want, whenever they want.
That said, the reason that it is significant to me that this law exists is two fold:
Putting things in law and leaving it there is a public statement about the priorities and values of a government.
I find it shocking that people hold out hope that some foreign body is going to stop or punish the US government for their atrocities when the USA has made it clear, from the beginning, that they oppose the ICC.
Trump’s vocal opposition is not new. Obama invoked the law in 2014. Part of the law is that the US will not participate in activities that put their soldiers at risk, which requires countries to agree to not prosecute or surrender US troops if they want the support of the US military.
Further to that, obama’s government launched a review of the law and decided to keep it.
Biden removed some of the trump sanctions from his first term.
The removal was because they thought there were more effective ways to object: