We’re only talking about today, bruh. There’s no sense worrying about a tomorrow that may never come, but I’m willing to bet that 10 years from now we still have the strongest military in and around The Hague and even beyond, very very few would ever be willing to threaten war with us to back up the ICC.
Now, 20 years from now? 30 years from now? 50? Who knows.
>"...very few would ever be willing to threaten war with us to back up the ICC"
They would not have to. It will be up to your military to come to allied country and shoot their way through. This might be physically possible but I would imagine that the consequences of it to the standing of the US would be cataclysmic. So unless it is a former president I suspect the US will rather use some severe sanctions and still risk a payback.
It won’t even come to that because the real truth is that no ICC member is ever going to arrest and extradite to the ICC a sitting or former POTUS putting us in a position where the Marine Corps. would have to roll into The Hague with a carrier group or two nearby and multiple submarine ICBMs aimed at every capital in Europe. Also you know, the American military personnel already situated nearby within Europe on American and NATO bases.
Should the Marine Corps. actually be put into a position to roll in and say “hi” to the people of The Hague for less than peaceful purposes on their leisurely stroll to the ICC’s courthouse, who in their right minds is also going to stand in their way and exchange fire?
Not to mention that whoever arrested the President has now effectively declared war on the United States.
Taking president of course means war. I mostly meant someone who is not the president, sitting of former. Then it will be the US thinking of potential consequences.
That’s also not going to happen. Even taking a former President is effectively an Act of War, especially with all the classified intel they were privy to during and still privy to after. Honestly you should consider it the same way all the way down to the rank of General, although I sure would hate to be a rank-and-file soldier caught by the ICC somehow. Even in that case they might not get a full on invasion on their behalf, you should still expect the State Department to intervene.
I’ll admit I overlooked you also included “or former”, but I did address you and say you should consider it practically the same down to the rank of at least General, which includes the Vice President and Cabinet Secretaries.
10 years from now either a non-state entity or the People's Republic of China will have the strongest military, and geography won't matter for military power.
Let’s say for the sake of argument, that’s true just to shortcut this: the PRC is also not party to the Rome Statute. Neither is Russia if you’re wondering. The largest military of a country party to the Rome Statute and the largest financial contributor to the ICC is Japan. Good luck.
The ICC is only truly relevant today as a means of imposing justice on smaller countries without the rule of law or the power to protect themselves from larger nations. Not quite irrelevant, but certainly not a powerhouse in real political terms.
Now, 20 years from now? 30 years from now? 50? Who knows.