The ICC already has the authority to punish people who interfere with its operations.
It's on them to prosecute people who cooperate with sanctions and the like to retaliate against the judges or lawyers or others working for the court, and they can do that any time they like.
Literally, they can write a warrant for the president of their bank, or the highest Microsoft rep in Europe, or anybody involved in any way, and the ICC-signatory country they're in must hand them over.
I don't see how they could legally intervene. Most EU countries have very independent court systems. Once the warrant is sent to the states, it will be enforced.
In EU countries with independent court systems, those EU governments routinely ignore court decisions they don't like. I did a very deep dive into this. There is no European country where checks and balances consistently, properly work.
Surprisingly enough among EU countries, Austria gets relatively close to adherence. Canada is likely the best at it globally (and yes, that takes into account "notwithstanding").
Comments
The ICC already has the authority to punish people who interfere with its operations.
It's on them to prosecute people who cooperate with sanctions and the like to retaliate against the judges or lawyers or others working for the court, and they can do that any time they like.
Literally, they can write a warrant for the president of their bank, or the highest Microsoft rep in Europe, or anybody involved in any way, and the ICC-signatory country they're in must hand them over.
They have the authority.
In theory, but I do not convinced countries are actually going to start handing over bank CEOs for doing something they were forced to do.
I don't see how they could legally intervene. Most EU countries have very independent court systems. Once the warrant is sent to the states, it will be enforced.
In EU countries with independent court systems, those EU governments routinely ignore court decisions they don't like. I did a very deep dive into this. There is no European country where checks and balances consistently, properly work.
Surprisingly enough among EU countries, Austria gets relatively close to adherence. Canada is likely the best at it globally (and yes, that takes into account "notwithstanding").
How is the EU relevant to the ICC?
EU countries have different systems, lots of countries in the rest of the world are ICC members have independent court systems?
I think people here often forget that most of the world is neither the US or the EU.
At some point, someone must be held to account for "just following order". We know what happens otherwise.