> Why not let arguments do their work in open debate?

Well, that happened. Israel presented an argument that the investigation legally must end, as they haven't consented to ICC jurisdiction; the ICC openly considered and openly rejected this argument (https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-p...), saying that Palestine's consent was sufficient because the alleged crimes took place in Palestinian territory.

The US has always taken an extremely aggressive stance that this theory of ICC jurisdiction is unacceptable. "It is a fundamental principle of international law that a treaty is binding upon its parties only and that it does not create obligations for nonparties without their consent to be bound", as 22 USC §7421 puts it. (If you're old enough, you may recognize this as part of the bipartisan "Hague Invasion Act" of 2002, widely understood as a threat of military force against anyone who tries to enforce ICC jurisdiction on a citizen of the US or its non-ICC allies.)

> the ICC openly considered and openly rejected this argument (https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-p...), saying that Palestine's consent was sufficient because the alleged crimes took place in Palestinian territory.

Its a little more complicated than that. The dispute is also about if palestine is a "state" and thus able to consent (and i'm not sure, but possibly what the territorial extent of Palestine is. it probably doesnt matter, but the fact that the official government of Palestine lost control of the gaza strip in a civil war a long time ago is another winkle in this whole thing)

While the court initially rejected Israel's challenge, the appeal court reverses the decision, and threw it back to the lower court, which is now deliberating on it https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-appea... . As far as i understand most observers think this is an extreme long shot on the part of Israel and they are unlikely to win this challenge.

[IANAL, and far from an expert at this, this stuff is complicated, it is very possible i got the details wrong]

I think the more interesting point here is that some members of ICC don't recognize Palestine as a state so they don't have a reason to accept ICC jurisdiction because essentially they will be ceding recognition of states to the ICC which seems unlikely.

and majority of those who recognize palestine as state, do not recognize any specific borders.

The US has never meaningfully backed the ICC, and has repudiated it for the overwhelming majority of its existence. Clinton signed the Rome Statute in 2000, on his way out the door; the US never ratified it, and we withdrew our signature in 2002.

Still, US was instrumental in a couple of cases. Supplying evidence against and apprehending suspects in case of ex Yugoslavian culprits and one or two African dictators, but I could be wrong...

The 2002 withdrawal was clearly to sidestep prosecution for the lies that led to Iraq's invasion.

US was okay with ICC until those human right high horse stuff could apply to US...

All I'm saying is that the US is not a signatory to the ICC and does not owe the ICC anything. The ICC sounds like an important supranational body, but is in fact simply a treaty agreed to by a minority of the world's population.

Fair enough.

I guess so I was saying, is that US might have been a signatory. In spirit, US has often advocated for applying rules of international humanitarian law where appropriate.

Treaties like NATO, NAFTA, or various "coalitions of the willing" were never backed by a majority of the worlds population. (Maybe an agreement between China and India, might count?).

I think the point isn't that US never believed in multilateralism - it did - but that it feels rules and laws should only apply to others.

I think that's probably a fair criticism of the US! The only thing that rankles me is the idea that there "is" a global criminal court that any country has any moral obligation to comply with. There is not. The US is disrupting the operations of an ICC case? Ok, so what? It's not a real court.

>> Claims about "helping the world" are highly subjective and often bullshit

> It seems you are making the point that using technology to punish subjective politics is the right way?!

My point was to not trust claims that so-and-so is "helping the world," is a vague but positive description that is abused and often collapses on further scrutiny (especially because the speaker may have different subjective interests, what's "helping the world" to him can be "harming the world" to you).

Your response was weird. I was talking about something that I specified clearly, but you took it as I was speaking about something else.

> Using sanctions in retributions to unfavourable opinions might seem against the spirit of US Constitution in other contexts...

No. What are you smoking?

> Why not let arguments do their work in open debate? The ICC isn't a bunch of loonies or Saddam's Baath party. These are reasonable people, with dissident opinions, for sure. But reasonable.

Ok then. I claim authority over you and your friends, but you never consented. I'm not a loony, why don't you recognize my authority over you and engage with me in open debate?

That's "why not."