110
Rubio vows diplomatic campaign to ‘dismantle’ ICC in escalating row
(www.thehill.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2026
110 points (100.0% liked)
World News
57135 readers
1711 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
ICC doesn't have jurisdiction for what states do within their own borders - every court has jurisdiction. If you don't know them or have your own feelings about them, then that's your own misconception of what the court's function is.
In the end, even the creation of the ICC in 2002 was contentious because of what states viewed as infringement of sovereignty. It's a very new international body that still doesn't have the support it needs. Additionally, it's judges and prosecutors are financially sanctioned by the US (for investigating war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan) which impedes their work.
It's less about being toothless, and more like states purposefully attack it and try to weaken it - meaning it does serve a purpose (which is why it's attacked) and can serve an even greater purpose if unimpeded.
So instead of blaming the ICC for doing their job in the quagmire that is international politics and the limited tools they have, you should be directing your ire at the states who don't allow it to function as it should and ask for more protections of the court.
To answer some things
I don't know what you mean about legitimizing. The court functions as any court in the world and the prosecution needs to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. If the court makes judgements outside of what can be proven or available evidence, then it's not a court and would not be legitimate (and probably be attacked even more than it is now).
And none of that changes anything.
You still have an org that is, to public perception, picking and choosing when they have jurisdiction and don't... and it almost always seems aligned with how influential the country in question is. They are fundamentally lawyers so I am sure there is a document with all of these corner cases written out but that really doesn't change the de facto of it.
And on the chance they DO decide they have jurisdiction? It just means that bibbi has to be careful about where he goes on holiday.
At its core, the ICC creates an illusion of justice when there is none. Which makes it a self serving farce that serves the interests of those who control them (which, ironically, includes the US, as you yourself point out).
If giving them more money solves it, cool. I'll believe it when I see it. Because it is still the same fundamental issue with basically any international peacekeeping org: They only have power when they are the proxy of a, generally imperialist, power. But it creates a fairy tale that justice will be served and there is accountability when there really isn't any.
They don't decide jurisdiction, it's already clear what their jurisdiction is (i.e. signatory states and others).
Sorry but you've shared a lot of emotional responses with very little in the way of facts - sometimes even complete inaccuracies. To be frank, I'm reading a lot of ignorance and assumptions rather than understanding. If that's how you base your opinions then there's not much point in engagement.