In terms of toothlessness? The active refusal to weigh in on the Uyghur Genocide is a “great” example of this. Or, for the tankies in the audience, the refusal to weigh in on all the evil the US is doing with ICE et al. Let alone our decades of wars of aggression.
Also… ya know, Netanyahu and Putin.
But generally? Their trials are weighted heavily towards African warlords who aren’t useful anymore.
As for legitimizing? Recent events are skewed due to a lack of interest in both the crime and the trial itself. Instead, I would recommend looking at the reality of the Nuremburg Trials themselves. Jacob Gellar did a spectacular video on this (that is only kind of tainted by doing Youtuber Voice for a lot of the quotes). But the short of it is that a lot of “crimes against humanity”… aren’t actually crimes in legal systems. And by making a farce of having an actual defense lawyer, it mostly just gives the accused a chance to lie about what they have done… or brag about it.
But, generally speaking, the ICC is, in many ways, the worst sins of the UN. Having a venue where nations are encouraged to discuss things and negotiate is good. But the moment you try to apply any penalties or enforce any of those negotiated terms, you just highlight how toothless the org itself is. And the ICC have very much done that as nations too powerful to be acted upon are, at best, given a slap on the wrist. And mostly it is a matter of punching down on “global south” nations where enforcing said rulings largely benefit the “global north” interests.
Like… in a lot of ways, your average HOA has more power than the ICC.
Can you give examples of when they’ve done those things?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#Trial_history is a good starting point.
In terms of toothlessness? The active refusal to weigh in on the Uyghur Genocide is a “great” example of this. Or, for the tankies in the audience, the refusal to weigh in on all the evil the US is doing with ICE et al. Let alone our decades of wars of aggression.
Also… ya know, Netanyahu and Putin.
But generally? Their trials are weighted heavily towards African warlords who aren’t useful anymore.
As for legitimizing? Recent events are skewed due to a lack of interest in both the crime and the trial itself. Instead, I would recommend looking at the reality of the Nuremburg Trials themselves. Jacob Gellar did a spectacular video on this (that is only kind of tainted by doing Youtuber Voice for a lot of the quotes). But the short of it is that a lot of “crimes against humanity”… aren’t actually crimes in legal systems. And by making a farce of having an actual defense lawyer, it mostly just gives the accused a chance to lie about what they have done… or brag about it.
But, generally speaking, the ICC is, in many ways, the worst sins of the UN. Having a venue where nations are encouraged to discuss things and negotiate is good. But the moment you try to apply any penalties or enforce any of those negotiated terms, you just highlight how toothless the org itself is. And the ICC have very much done that as nations too powerful to be acted upon are, at best, given a slap on the wrist. And mostly it is a matter of punching down on “global south” nations where enforcing said rulings largely benefit the “global north” interests.
Like… in a lot of ways, your average HOA has more power than the ICC.