However, many Ukrainians feared that ratification of the Rome Statute could allow the ICC to prosecute Ukrainian citizens participating in the armed conflict on Ukrainian territory.

To reflect those concerns, the legislation contains a clause that says Ukraine will not recognize the ICC’s jurisdiction in cases where the crimes may have been committed by Ukrainian nationals.

top 12 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 24 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Isn't the entire point of the Rome Statute that the country accepts the court's jurisdiction involving international crimes and crimes against humanity as higher than that of any national court? I'm not an expert, but I imagine this defeats the point of signing the statute in the first place.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 months ago

Yes, that's why many countries, like the US, haven't ratified the Rome Statute. They refuse to accept anything they don't control as having jurisdiction over their country or citizens.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago

Indeed, it does.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 5 months ago

"Yeah man, we're totally down to bring justice to those monsters accused of doing war crimes! Woah wait, I mean, except when we do a war crime, that's alright, we have good reasons."

Ah, they grow up so fast! Just like big brother USA! 🥲🇺🇲🦅

[+] [email protected] -9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Hope you don't, they are nothing short of a bad joke anyway.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

How so?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

My cousin sent me this Joe Rogan video.. you should do your own research

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

Ew Joe Rogan is a worse joke.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago

Nice..

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Court without teeth and a court without any benefits. Sentencing war criminals can be done by the regular courts in said country. The people committing war crimes are usually in countries that don't send them to said court or actively protect them.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Except that in cases where issues are supra national this helps. Could a local court do it, sure. But in this case enforcement is done by signatory countries within their own borders. This means people wanted cannot travel to any signatory country. Which is not nothing in my book.

And depending on the resolve of a country that has a pending case, a wanted person hiding in a country that is not a signatory, might wake up in the trunk of a car parked in the Hague one day. And the court publicly convicted and jailed several high profile war criminals.

So our definition of useless is different.

Edit: Don't let perfect get in the way of good.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

The problem is that its not even good, not OK either, its Meh.