The US position on the ICC is very reasonable. Absolutely no one should agree to be under the jurisdiction of an independent international court, but at least many of its members signed on to it.
The court believes that it has jurisdiction over anyone involved in a conflict with a signatory. This is why the president is preauthorized by congress to use military force against the Netherlands, in the event that an american or allied service member is held there.
fwn 5 hours ago [-]
This seems like a tangent. The article isn’t about whether the ICC’s jurisdiction is valid—it's about how dependent international institutions (or anyone, really) are on US-based tech providers, and how that exposes them to US executive power, like sanctions or account blocks.
I’m not convinced that “digital sovereignty” is the right framing for this problem. What I think is more important here - and probably more interesting to HN - is the fragility introduced by technological monocultures and lack of service portability. Open protocols, interoperability, and reducing concentration risk matter more than trying to build a digitally fenced-off Europe.
saubeidl 5 hours ago [-]
I think either approach works.
China is definitely digitally fenced-off and you don't see it having these issues.
fwn 5 hours ago [-]
> China is definitely digitally fenced-off and you don't see it having these issues.
China is the textbook example of this problem. Political power in China routinely uses infrastructure to suppress or punish those who deviate from approved positions. This is precisely the risk that the article raises.
And obviously, if the ICC were to switch to Chinese infrastructure, it would just be trading one leverage for a more active one.
saubeidl 4 hours ago [-]
That's a separate issue. Infrastructure is never suppressed in China because somebody outside of China disapproves of a position. The sovereignty of the Chinese state is maintained.
pk-protect-ai 4 hours ago [-]
Now this happens in US too... ICC must use its own mail servers. Actually any government or international organization must use its own infrastructure. Dependency on any 3rd party is an attack vector.
trod1234 2 hours ago [-]
> who deviate from approved positions.
That's making it sound like those approved positions are unchanging. They constantly change, and punish those that didn't change quick enough.
The anaconda in the chandelier in a locked room of blind people.
mathgradthrow 3 hours ago [-]
Of course its a tangent. The article is trying to talk around the fact the the ICC is a unique diplomatic object wrt the US. Bringing this fact into focus in the conversation is tangential to the article because the article fails to incorporate it.
trod1234 2 hours ago [-]
> Open protocols ... concentration risk matter more...
Well it all comes down to the incentives and money. Money printing sieves money into such titans, concentrating business. You gotta look at the banking cartel before anything else.
saubeidl 5 hours ago [-]
That position is pure hubris.
mathgradthrow 2 hours ago [-]
Can you use hubris is a different sentence, so that I can make sure I inderstand what you think it means?
mystified5016 4 hours ago [-]
No, the president of the US should just be considered by all to be the god-emperor of the planet.
aegypti 3 hours ago [-]
ICC signatories:
- Europe
- LATAM
- subsaharan Africa
ICC nonsignatories:
- US
- China
- India
- Russia
- Turkey
- Israel
- Pakistan
- Egypt
- Saudi Arabia
Hubris is imagining a situation in which The Hague Act is ever tested in the first place!
Rendered at 19:32:50 GMT+0000 (UTC) with Wasmer Edge.
It reinforces the need for the EU to break free from US tech.
This is plain corporate malfeasance and corruption.
If anything its highly anti-American, borderline communist/state regime.
American values include many things, one of the more important being free speech.
Such a violation deserves reciprocity, stop blaming issues on the wrong things.
The court believes that it has jurisdiction over anyone involved in a conflict with a signatory. This is why the president is preauthorized by congress to use military force against the Netherlands, in the event that an american or allied service member is held there.
I’m not convinced that “digital sovereignty” is the right framing for this problem. What I think is more important here - and probably more interesting to HN - is the fragility introduced by technological monocultures and lack of service portability. Open protocols, interoperability, and reducing concentration risk matter more than trying to build a digitally fenced-off Europe.
China is definitely digitally fenced-off and you don't see it having these issues.
China is the textbook example of this problem. Political power in China routinely uses infrastructure to suppress or punish those who deviate from approved positions. This is precisely the risk that the article raises.
And obviously, if the ICC were to switch to Chinese infrastructure, it would just be trading one leverage for a more active one.
That's making it sound like those approved positions are unchanging. They constantly change, and punish those that didn't change quick enough.
The anaconda in the chandelier in a locked room of blind people.
Well it all comes down to the incentives and money. Money printing sieves money into such titans, concentrating business. You gotta look at the banking cartel before anything else.
- Europe
- LATAM
- subsaharan Africa
ICC nonsignatories:
- US
- China
- India
- Russia
- Turkey
- Israel
- Pakistan
- Egypt
- Saudi Arabia
Hubris is imagining a situation in which The Hague Act is ever tested in the first place!