The ICC has never prosecuted a Dutch citizen (or anyone, for that matter) over war crimes committed during the Bosnian War. The events of Dutchbat happened in 1995, 3 years before the Rome Statue (the treaty that established the ICC) was accepted. The ICC has no retroactive jurisdiction as per the Rome Statue (Article 11(1)) [1]:

    The Court has jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force of this Statute.

There were some civil cases against Dutchbat, the Dutch state and the United Nations. Dutch courts held the state responsible to some degree in all cases.

Unsurprisingly, the rest of your story is also false. There are no credible reports of the Dutch government threatening anyone to drop cases related to Dutchbat. Some Dutchbat officers were awarded military honors, but they were not knighted, nor did their pay increase as a result of their actions in Srebrenica. The ICC moved to a new building in 2016, this was again not a result of anything that happened in Yugoslavia.

[1] https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/Rome-Sta...

Hosting a email service isn't rocket science. If ICC can't be bothered to do that for themselves that speaks more to their general incompetence then anything else.

This isn't the first time they have faced US sanctions, after all.

> once you start defying lawful orders, people are going to be scared that this same power can be used against them.

I feel like people only born yesterday could say this. There has been a bipartisan push for an Executive unfettered by the legislature since 9/11, and extreme partisans just point at each other. You're both right.

On average, not much apparently. Can't find the story now, but there was someone recounting Jewish families still hiding and hoping people aren't coming for them specifically, in towns where soldiers ended up coming for all the families. It seems like when it comes to similar decisions made individually, people aren't that keen to risk their lives.

I rather suspect that this would come with mandatory encryption backdoors.

Mandating browsers (preinstalled on devices sold in EU) auto-delete cookies on window close, and add a button to whitelist 1st party cookies on specific domains, would solve many more problems without wasting time with annoying popups.

It requires a given state to allow it to operate and have jurisdiction. That's a political act through and through.

The US doesn't recognize it anymore so it's baffling why they didn't move to non US equipment.

Think of the treaty as more of an extradition scheme. Its also a bit of an insurance policy - its an incentive not to commit international crimes against/on territory of member states, because it becomes much harder to evade justice.

There is also an element of symbolism to it, of what type of country you want to be.

All I’m doing though is pointing out that no European institutions were harmed by this result, and I’ll even add to that that generally the American sanctions regime is often a benefit to our allies; and this type of sanctioning is something we have usually done in concert with our European allies. What’s different this time is that it’s targeting an ICC prosecutor rather than people who are also on the EU’s hit list, namely Putin’s cronies.

So after the US (and others) fought for Europe in WW-II. Defended Europe during the cold war (and till today). Took most of the load ($, weapons etc.) in supporting Ukraine against Russia. Now you're going to tell it to f off? And that is somehow in the interest of the citizens?

How many American companies have offices in Europe? How many American products are in your life? Hacker News is based where?

I would agree the partnership needs to evolve as does everything. But in a world that's looking more and more like China-"The West"-India(?) Europe's place is still in the west. That's likely the best thing for the world and for Europeans. And for Americans. Hopefully also including better partnership with the rest of the world as well.

Presidents come and go. Don't get too stuck on Trump.

European Democracies should start a, new, NATO-like military Alliance on their own, but without Trump's America.

(and without the notorious US-made military equipment kill-switches)

And while we're at it, this time will be different: Instead of the membership criteria being anti-soviet communism, as in NATO, it should be effective Liberal Democracy - and - Freedom from Exceptionalist Exemptions, namely from the International Rule of Law. So, to be part,

1. Compulsory International Criminal Court membership and compliance - hence no exceptionalistic US, no exceptionalistic Israel - and now, no Orbanic Hungary.

2. No "Illiberal Democracies": say, for example, a composite of a minimum 0.67 score on the WJP Rule of Law Index and others: therefore no Orbanic Hungary, and no illiberal others like it. Poland, Slovakia, Italy: time to make some hard choices if you want in.

3. Democratic backsliding removes you rights in the Alliance, and, can proportionally lead to outright expulsion.

Not one more new military equipment purchase from the US, (and dispreference for other non-qualifying nations procurement). Member nations should use their - substantial - industrial capacity to equip themselves with indigenous military materiel.

Hey, it would be actually great for the economy!

Initially European scope, but bridges to a broader global scope (or even a secondary sister-Alliance) with open-ended partnerships with Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, and yes: Taiwan.

US and/or Israel want to join, if a more Democratic future selves? Simple: fully join the ICC, and meet the Alliance's full criteria as every other member. Same applies for prospective new members.

Sweden shows how principled positions can be maintained while building serious defense capabilities. Now multiply that model by Europe's combined industrial and technological base.

We just need the political will to execute - instead of rolling over and wagging our tail to bullies.

> Nothing screams "complicit in genocide" like attacking and cripling the institution investigating such crimes.

The law you cited is clear. Don’t touch American service members and American service members won’t touch the court. Reasonable enough given we aren’t party to the court and will not be held subject to its jurisdiction.

US isn't really a party to all this, so there isn't much they can do legally (to be clear i think americas sanctions are unacceptable). They could file a juridsictional challenge, which some countries did, but legally there isn't a huge amount of ground to stand on for that.

Other than that, the actual legal part doesn't start until (if) the suspects are apprehended. And if it does get to a trial, its going to be the accused lawyers who are going to be fighting it out.

What's legally questionable, is for ICC to claim jurisdiction over Israel - a nation that never signed to or ratified the ICC statue.

Claims about "helping the world" are highly subjective and often bullshit (see the often-mocked tech company talk about "making the world a better place [by doing awful stuff like shoving targeted ads in people's faces]".

> If the ICC is doing so much harm to the US, fight legally. That's where the battle should be fought. Not ripping away some guy's email access.

What do you mean? Sanctions are "fight[ing] legally," literally.