The ICC has no power inside the US but Americans can still be handed over to & tried by the ICC if they're arrested in one of the signatory countries.
Same with Israel, which is why people like Netanyahu, Smotrich & Gvir have to be careful which routes their flights take.
Israel doesn’t have the levers of power America does. You’re talking about the same country that requires host countries of our troops to indemnify our troops from local laws. The ICC attempting to arrest a U.S. citizen abroad would not go how you believe.
You have a naive understanding of sovereignty. No nation state will give up its autonomy and sovereignty. The entire apparatus of “international law” is just powerful countries agreeing to restrain themselves for the purpose of deescalation and trade.
Take a step back and consider whether you want India and China to write your laws, because that’s what a “supermajority” internationalist government would mean, practically speaking.
There’s a difference between countries that have people that commit war crimes that (often imperfectly) attempt to punish those who do, and countries that commit war crimes as a matter of policy.
Countries won’t give up sovereignty. That’s the point you’re bullheadedly ignoring. Any enforcement mechanism requires either consent (which is never given) or force (sanctions or war). International law a a tool of punishing war crimes is a farce.
First it's an illegal war according to international law. This means Trump is a war criminal. Or rather he could be prosecuted for the crime of agression.
Individually I think attacking desalination plants is a war crime. Or nothing is a war crime. Just because it can be used by the military shouldn't mean it's open season to destroy.
Everyone is rightfully calling out Russia for destroying power plants and it's hard to argue that the US destroying power plants is any different.
Also Trump has literally said it's in retaliation for strikes on ships. So that's what the Nazis did with London. Those weapons were V-weapons (V1, V2) and the V stood for Vergeltung or retaliation.
So I don't see how these attacks are not war crimes. Any other country would be sanctioned. Trump is self-sanctioning with his tariffs though, but that's another discussion.
Under LOAC, civilian infrastructure such as power plants and water treatment facilities is presumed to be protected. However, it they become a lawful military objective if it meets the legal definition of a military objective at the time of the attack.
The governing rules are found primarily in Additional Protocol I.
Article 52(1) states:
“Civilian objects shall not be the object of attack…”
Article 52(2) then defines the exception:
“Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.”
The object must effectively contribute to military action AND destroying or neutralizing it must provide a definite military advantage.
It’s all a moot point though because the us did not ratify Additional Protocol 1.
> US President Donald Trump vowed on Wednesday to destroy an Iranian bridge or power plant every time Iran shoots at a ship in the Strait of Hormuz, raising the stakes after Iranian-allied Houthis in Yemen threatened a second vital energy route.
I think this would make it very hard to argue the US is attacking military targets, if its a retaliation. At least in my eyes.
> It’s all a moot point though because the us did not ratify Additional Protocol 1.
It's still relevant, otherwise it would be a legal loophole where anyone could just claim they haven't signed on so they can attack indiscriminantly. Case in point the Nazi war crime trials where they were prosecuted under ex post facto laws—meaning laws created after the deeds were done—and for concepts Germany had never formally signed into treaty law.
Also the war itself is illegal under Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter. Which means Trump should face a trial at The Hague.
We held ourselves to principals of LOAC in Vietnam, Iraq 2, and Afghanistan having tried Soldiers for loac violations. None of those were declared wars
But to answer your Q, LOAC usually solely refers to Law in War (conduct of militaries). While Law of War can refer to both Law in War and the Right to War (nations legal justifications for war).
The country led by the pedo rapist who gleefully promised that a ‘civilisation was ending’ the night they started the war and bombed a school with 160 children in it?
They’d be disappointed if it wasn’t a war crime. And the ones who aren’t drooling over the suffering don’t care. It’s just another thing that’s happening.
This whole thing is a war crime. I am so ashamed of my country for this. There is no public support for this ware and every day that it drags on is a travesty.
Technical_Hall_9841 | 19 hours ago
Yes, next question
AcknowledgeUs | 19 hours ago
Yes. All kinds of crimes are being committed with US resources and name.
hereandthere_nowhere | 18 hours ago
Unequivocally yes. Let’s start having tougher conversations.
Revolutionary_Sir_ | 18 hours ago
Yes. Always.
punninglinguist | 17 hours ago
That's crazy. If they were, then they'd also be trying to abolish the International Criminal Court.
Netherese_Nomad | 16 hours ago
Why, America isn’t a signatory to the Rome Statute. The ICC has no power here.
Spookyrabbit | 13 hours ago
The ICC has no power inside the US but Americans can still be handed over to & tried by the ICC if they're arrested in one of the signatory countries.
Same with Israel, which is why people like Netanyahu, Smotrich & Gvir have to be careful which routes their flights take.
Netherese_Nomad | 7 hours ago
Israel doesn’t have the levers of power America does. You’re talking about the same country that requires host countries of our troops to indemnify our troops from local laws. The ICC attempting to arrest a U.S. citizen abroad would not go how you believe.
gorpie97 | 7 hours ago
You should have to be, if you want to be a member of the UN in good standing.
Netherese_Nomad | 7 hours ago
We basically are the UN dude. We host the headquarters and fund like a third of it.
The UN isn’t an extra governmental authority, it’s just a communications forum of last resort.
gorpie97 | 6 hours ago
The UN should be revamped or replaced.
No one country should be allowed to veto anything. Or, if they keep a veto, it can be overridden by a supermajority vote.
Netherese_Nomad | 6 hours ago
You have a naive understanding of sovereignty. No nation state will give up its autonomy and sovereignty. The entire apparatus of “international law” is just powerful countries agreeing to restrain themselves for the purpose of deescalation and trade.
Take a step back and consider whether you want India and China to write your laws, because that’s what a “supermajority” internationalist government would mean, practically speaking.
gorpie97 | 6 hours ago
I understand that there should be a place where things are discussed by various countries.
I also understand that countries should be held accountable for its war crimes.
Netherese_Nomad | 5 hours ago
There’s a difference between countries that have people that commit war crimes that (often imperfectly) attempt to punish those who do, and countries that commit war crimes as a matter of policy.
Countries won’t give up sovereignty. That’s the point you’re bullheadedly ignoring. Any enforcement mechanism requires either consent (which is never given) or force (sanctions or war). International law a a tool of punishing war crimes is a farce.
hahaha01 | 16 hours ago
I read this in Theoden's voice being puppeted by Saruman.
Netherese_Nomad | 7 hours ago
More like Sarah denouncing the Goblin King.
Ok-Youth-160 | 18 hours ago
First it's an illegal war according to international law. This means Trump is a war criminal. Or rather he could be prosecuted for the crime of agression.
Individually I think attacking desalination plants is a war crime. Or nothing is a war crime. Just because it can be used by the military shouldn't mean it's open season to destroy.
Everyone is rightfully calling out Russia for destroying power plants and it's hard to argue that the US destroying power plants is any different.
Also Trump has literally said it's in retaliation for strikes on ships. So that's what the Nazis did with London. Those weapons were V-weapons (V1, V2) and the V stood for Vergeltung or retaliation.
So I don't see how these attacks are not war crimes. Any other country would be sanctioned. Trump is self-sanctioning with his tariffs though, but that's another discussion.
malici606 | 19 hours ago
Yes
tibearius1123 | 16 hours ago
The actual answer is it depends.
Under LOAC, civilian infrastructure such as power plants and water treatment facilities is presumed to be protected. However, it they become a lawful military objective if it meets the legal definition of a military objective at the time of the attack.
The governing rules are found primarily in Additional Protocol I.
Article 52(1) states:
“Civilian objects shall not be the object of attack…”
Article 52(2) then defines the exception:
“Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.”
The object must effectively contribute to military action AND destroying or neutralizing it must provide a definite military advantage.
It’s all a moot point though because the us did not ratify Additional Protocol 1.
Ok-Youth-160 | 15 hours ago
> US President Donald Trump vowed on Wednesday to destroy an Iranian bridge or power plant every time Iran shoots at a ship in the Strait of Hormuz, raising the stakes after Iranian-allied Houthis in Yemen threatened a second vital energy route.
I think this would make it very hard to argue the US is attacking military targets, if its a retaliation. At least in my eyes.
> It’s all a moot point though because the us did not ratify Additional Protocol 1.
It's still relevant, otherwise it would be a legal loophole where anyone could just claim they haven't signed on so they can attack indiscriminantly. Case in point the Nazi war crime trials where they were prosecuted under ex post facto laws—meaning laws created after the deeds were done—and for concepts Germany had never formally signed into treaty law.
Also the war itself is illegal under Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter. Which means Trump should face a trial at The Hague.
thataintapipe | 13 hours ago
Is LOAC applicable for an invading force? One that hasn’t declared war?
tibearius1123 | 12 hours ago
We held ourselves to principals of LOAC in Vietnam, Iraq 2, and Afghanistan having tried Soldiers for loac violations. None of those were declared wars
But to answer your Q, LOAC usually solely refers to Law in War (conduct of militaries). While Law of War can refer to both Law in War and the Right to War (nations legal justifications for war).
BallsOfStonk | 18 hours ago
Yes
nana-korobi-ya-oki | 18 hours ago
Oh I know this one… yes obviously
Browniesmobetta | 15 hours ago
Ask the Iranians
biskino | 19 hours ago
The country led by the pedo rapist who gleefully promised that a ‘civilisation was ending’ the night they started the war and bombed a school with 160 children in it?
They’d be disappointed if it wasn’t a war crime. And the ones who aren’t drooling over the suffering don’t care. It’s just another thing that’s happening.
gorpie97 | 7 hours ago
Plus, all the war crimes we've committed since 9/11. And all the war crimes we committed before then. (It's not just the pedo rapist to blame.)
biskino | 6 hours ago
We must stop the terror. I call upon all nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorist killers. Thank you. Now watch this drive.
NeverInsightful | 17 hours ago
Yes.
Pixilatedhighmukamuk | 17 hours ago
Killing over 100 Iranian schoolgirls should have been an international crime.
ManyBubbly3570 | 15 hours ago
The answer might not surprise you, it’s yes.
yoshix003 | 14 hours ago
Duh
NubileOne | 9 hours ago
The US has been at it for decades
tomjoad2020ad | 19 hours ago
Wouldn’t be the first time.
UrbanStrangler | 6 hours ago
yes but in lower case
everyonelikesnoodles | 3 hours ago
This whole thing is a war crime. I am so ashamed of my country for this. There is no public support for this ware and every day that it drags on is a travesty.
n0neOfConsequence | 3 hours ago
Yes, which is why Rubio is trying to dismantle the ICC.
hould-it | 17 hours ago
Yes and he’s been doing it to the US’ as well. They should all be arrested and held accountable
random_actuary | 8 hours ago
Every current and past US president guilty of war crimes should be handed over, arrestes, and convicted.
mekese2000 | 13 hours ago
I don't believe the country that double taps survivors on a capsized boat waving their arms for rescue would comit a war crime.
Dennisthefirst | 12 hours ago
Seems we can now add War Criminal to this list. https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/list-trump-crimes-constitutional-violations-examples-8eae53
pierdola91 | 12 hours ago
Yes. Next.
neurospicygogo70 | 9 hours ago
Obviously
DantheDutchGuy | 9 hours ago
Yes