America has apparently decided that the fiction is no longer useful. At least not to us.

I can't say I'm happy about that, but it's a fact now. We cannot put that genie back in the bottle. Even a change of leadership soon will not alter the realization that it can change back on a moment's notice.

So... we will find out.

As an American, I don't think anyone informed has ever perceived the US as neutral, at least not since the 20th century. We have veto power with control of the US dollar, the ability of the US military to engage in any part of the world (historically, much less so in current year), and being a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

In my opinion, the sanctioning of these judges simply comes across as a petty tantrum of a nation in decline, using the remaining tools it has at it's disposal to try to get its way.

edit: typo

As you say neutrality is a fiction.

Everything the US does and has done is aimed at defending itself and its interests, which includes its allies, as it should, and as it must.

The extent to which these actions appeared neutral was just a product of the overwhelming power of the US and overwhelming unity - by virtue of deference - prevalent among the Western powers during the Cold War, in the shadow of a common enemy.

Global neutral institutions exist on a fictional foundation that becomes thinner by the day. For substantial matters on which there is no rational answer, the only solution is the exercise of power.

In this case, the US and Israel were never parties to the ICC, so the ICC was never neutral with respect to them. If they had submitted to the ICC, I think your point would be valid.

Ostensibly does an incredible amount of work here.

There are legitimate, serious grievances with institutions like the ICC. We're talking about an institution that believes it can override the sovereignty of nations and democratically elected governments to go after you or anyone, and the judges are chosen by a byzantine bureaucratic process that involves effectively zero input from you or the democratically determined laws of your nation. It's pretty nakedly a vehicle for the interests of various international political players.

My understanding from glancing at the hopefully correct sanctions statement [1] is that they are secondary in nature (see for example Sec 3). So the insurance company will face all the same sanctions that the ICC judge is facing if they serve them. They banks will cutoff the insurance company as well, because the banks themselves use US infrastructure.

The only solution would be similar to what China exercised. The EU passes an order telling all EU entities to not comply with US sanctions or face legal problems. Then it comes down to how the US responds and whether EU can take that hit.

[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/impo...

EU politicians should grow some balls and force their companies to ignore US sanctions in cases like these

The use of quotes indicates that that's the US perception of her under the current administration. You can read the relevant executive order/public statements if you need insight into why Trump and his appointees feel that way.

Not a good look sure, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s effective over the near term. Especially if they keep expanding this to include more of the ICC bench.

Yes, effective in speeding up decoupling of the EU banking system from the US and quickly reducing the use of the systems of Mastercard and Visa. Last year's sanctions on ICC individuals already had a large effect. For instance, the fear of further dependence on US companies has already caused blocking of the sale of the Dutch company Solvinity (who maintain the Dutch digital ID systems) to Kyndryl and has put some countries on the path of moving off Office 365, Exchange and even Windows.

It's just insane stupidity by the US administration. It's very unlikely that an US official would ever be arrested for the ICC, allies wouldn't go there. So, it's just putting Europe on a path to purchase less and less from US service/software companies to protect Benny, who could simply avoid being arrested by not going to a country that joined the ICC.

This is doubly "ironic" considering the left was all for debanking right-wing dissenters (Freedom Convoy) when they were in power.

> IIRC most of them were "debanked" due to crypto fraud or other financial crimes.

How would you even know this? Was there a poll done across every Trump supporter where they admitted to committing financial fraud? Do you mean to say Trump's 'pundits' and not his 'supporters'?

Also, the majority of pushback to debanking that I've seen among MAGA types I know IRL is more centered around the 2022 trucker protests and the debatably unjust reaction from the Canadian government.

Depending on where you live, your country may or may not have decided to give legal force to ICC rulings by joining the Rome Statute treaty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute). If you live in a democracy, this was decided by democratic means, and can be changed the same way. This is not a unique situation, there will be many, many other treaties that your country has decided to sign up to.

Having seen some other texts, at least one other judge (Guillou) has really strange attitudes of the role of the court, discussing the European project, etc. in articles about the court.

The fellow does not give the impression of understand fully that he's sitting on an internal court with its own powers, and the way US/Polish/etc. crimes have been excluded from the Afghanistan investigation even though people relevant in such an investigation are particularly easy to interview since so many are in Europe I think these people genuinely do not understand their job, or have given themselves another job in their minds.

Prost is now basically doing public outreach, Guillou was doing public outreach and diplomacy trying to interact with the EU to get it to enforce its blocking statute regarding sanctions on the court-- all this stuff instead of using the powers they're granted by Rome statute to deal with this specific problem.

They have the remedy. Anyone retaliating against the court can be ordered arrested, and the signatories have to do it or they're in breach of the treaty.

The level of subservience of the judges is just ridiculous.

If the target were legitimate then maybe the EU could stick to respecting legitimate sanctions.

What many people seem to forget is that the US is in the habit of issuing unilateral sanctions. They are not legitimate in the way UN sanctions are.

I agree it's not easy, but someone in her position could put out a call for companies that would support her (and benefit from very good PR in the process). Ie, perhaps the Dutch ethical (and low-tech) bank Triodos would be a candidate? I agree such companies would really put their behinds on the line, so maybe that won't work...

> that's what upset the Americans

Which Americans? I think it just upset only the Zionists, Epstein class, members of congress bought and paid for by Israel(AIPAC) including the US presidential administration, plus the boomers who've been brainwashed by decades of Zionist propaganda on TV, but I imagine a large part of US voter base, especially under-35s, don't agree with this if polled.

At least every American I know in Europe(not a representative sample size, I know) is vehemently against supporting what Israel is doing.

I mean sure, each individual product has an alternative. The value is in the integration and user knowledge.

You'd have to scale the IT dept, especially the people answering dumb user questions, which will skyrocket.

Foreign nations choose to sign the Rome Statute. Should the rest of the world be prohibited from thinking Netanyahu is a war criminal because it might offend non-signatory countries?

History will remember your actions, being against an international court is a sign you are the bad guy. Not even mentioning anything else that is magnitudes worse.

Funding of nearly every major USA political can only get you so far.

No, that is the only thing that makes the ICC justifiable under the anarchy of international relations. If a leader of a nation unilaterally revokes the treaty submitting themselves to the ICC's jurisdiction, that's a harder case, and I'd support the ICC going after that nation's citizens if they commit other offenses.

But if a nation decides not to submit to the ICC, then it's up to the UN Security Council to go after them, and the Security Council was set up intentionally to only allow punishment of leaders where every major power can agree. The Security Council at least tries to work with the reality of international relations, whereas the ICC in this case is way out of line.

I think you mean Americans. Are the Europeans in the habit of issuing unilateral sanctions in an attempt to impose their domestic law internationally?

> Europeans have a superiority complex in believing their law is 'international'.

Do you even know what the ICC is based on?

> American law rests on a joint agreement among the governed.

No, it doesn't.

> The American people have never agreed to be governed by a foreign court.

That's the first true statement in your reply, and it means they can simply ignore the court. It doesn't mean targeting the employees of the court. That's just the US govt. being thugs.

>The American people have never agreed to be governed by a foreign court.

Unfortunately we live under the rule of a Zionist Occupied Government so that ground was ceded long ago.

I'm American and I never once agreed to any of our laws. Countries have a monopoly on violence, that is it. You can agree, disagree and try to survive or hope some other country will let you immigrate.

That being said, I think the vast majority of Americans are ok with the ICC holding people committing genocide accountable. Most Americans also do not like the influence Israel has on our country and these sanctions are just yet more proof that we are occupied and not even operating in our government's own interests.