34

The ICC has approximately no legal status under the US Constitution. In particular: It is not an Article III (federal) court because it was not established by Congress. It is not treated as a foreign court under principles of comity, because it is not part of the legal apparatus of any sovereign state recognized by the United States. The United States has ...


19

When the Russian soldiers first deployed in the Crimea, Turchynov feared that any provocation would lead to a full scale war, a war he'd have very little chance of winning. He compared the situation with the Russian deployment in Abkhazia and South Ossetia (which started under the same general pretense of protecting the Russian citizens there): "Russia ...


16

No, it does not forbid it. The Geneva Convention establish the standards of international law for the humanitarian treatment of war Geneva Convention IV Article 28 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: “The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.” The loss of civilian life ...


14

The reason leaders don't fight is because the first nation to not fight by these rules will win, and whoever doesn't form an army will lose their stuff. Angela Merkel decides that she's the rightful owner of Tokyo and declares war on Japan. In response, Shinzo Abe decides to step down and let Kisenosato Yutaka take control of Japan during the War of Merkel ...


14

By Wikipedia it is compulsorial. "The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the opposing nation is not a signatory, but only if the opposing nation "accepts and applies the provisions" of the Conventions.[14]" A signer shall not be the one who breaks the conventions first. If the opposing country breaks it, the convention doesn't apply anymore I ...


13

The most common definition of what is and what is not acceptable in an armed conflict is The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. It was later ammended by the Geneva Conventions. It is a document much too long to sumarize completely. Here are just some examples of acts it forbids: intentionally targeting civilians, their property or civilian infrastructure ...


13

A Cold War is not a declared war. Possibly not even an undeclared war. It is not really a term in customary international law. So there are two things required: Somebody coins a memorable phrase and pubicizes it. In the case of the "first" Cold War, this was George Orwell, the author of Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm. It remains to be seen if people ...


12

Yes The treaty you are asking about is actually the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons and not the Geneva Convention. The second part of that convention (the Protocol on Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices) defines a booby-trap as: "Booby-trap" means any device or material which is designed, ...


12

What Is International Law? Your assumptions that someone is or isn't "illegally occupying" territory, or that something is or is not illegal under international law, isn't really how international law works. Likewise, it is not, in general, possible to apply principles of international law to a dispute to determine if something is or is not legal ...


10

Aside from the danger inherent to initiating a military conflict, Hamas endangers its civilians in a number of ways not necessary (or legal) to engage in the conflict. For Hamas to demonstrate that it is trying to mitigate Palestinian civilian casualties, it would need to publicly and substantially end these practices. Some such practices include: Storing ...


10

Impersonation of a foreign official. Because ICC is not recognized as a court, if any officer of ICC claims to be be an officer of a court, they may be guilty of 18 U.S.C. § 915 impersonating an official of a foreign government. Whoever, with intent to defraud within the United States, (likely made meaningless by guidance to 912) falsely assumes or ...


9

The Ukranians have not surrendered. There is currently a stand-off between Russia and the Ukraine, which is attempting to be solved diplomatically. Klitschko told The Associated Press that "of course" he is afraid of Russian aggression, but said the standoff over Crimea shouldn't be solved "on a military level." "We must do ...


9

ISIS is not a member of the ICC, therefore it can't appeal to it. Intentionally killing journalists would be a war crime. However, if journalists are killed by an attack aimed at a legitimate target, it is not (otherwise armies would include journalists in every fighting unit).


8

Because the leaders aren't interested in dying for their goals. No-one would give up their stuff if they did It's not as if the people on the ground would leave their homes, after e.g. Putin punching out Trump, in the way they would if Russian soldiers pointed guns at them


7

There are several reasons why Ukrainian soldiers didn't fight in Crimea 1) A historical and cultural bond with the Russians 2) A lack of sufficient support from the local population 3) An uncertainty caused by Kiev’s echelon of power 4) A lack of success even if they had tried to fight 1) If you are familiar with the history of the USSR ...


7

There is no (nor could there be) a law that would prevent global nuclear war. Should a nation with nuclear weapons decide that it wanted to start launching nukes, then those nukes are getting launched regardless of any relevant legal issues. International law is, unfortunately, more about re-enforcing the hierarchy of power between nations. They are tools ...


7

The United States can hardly call out Russia for using White Phosphorus against enemy combatants hiding among civilian targets when they did the same in Iraq and very likely also in Afghanistan. When one condemns the use of WP by Russia, one also has to condemn its use by the US (and Israel too, by the way). That's not in the political interest of any state ...


6

It is common for civil wars to involve substantial aid from foreigners. Sometimes this aid includes genuine volunteers; sometimes it includes hired mercenaries; sometimes it includes financial support; and sometimes it includes intervention by foreign armies and/or navies. For example, there have been three major civil wars in what is now the United States:...


6

This article explains a lot of what happen with Ukraine army in Crimea and elsewhere. To highlight some good points: Ukraine army is dramatically underfunded: How bad is it? Only 1 in 10 Ukrainian troops staring across the border at Russia are protected by body armor. The country has lost at least three helicopters trying to take a better look at the ...


6

Article 5 is quite specific. It states that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all however each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties ...


6

The chemical weapons convention entered into force in 1997, so the majority of attempts on Castro occurred before the Chemical weapons convention entered into force. While assassination may sometimes be legal during a war, it is not legal outside of hostilities. One is allowed to kill enemy hostiles. One is allowed to use lethal force against someone who is ...


5

This is muddled by certain events that have already happened - the fact that Syria shot down a Turkish aircraft and that Syrian troops have repeatedly shelled across the Turkish border. These events triggered 'consultations' within NATO but the broader consensus was not to escalate. It is likely that Turkey's involvement in action against Syria will be ...


5

A Convention is a treaty between sovereign entities. Treaties are "gentleman's agreements." Nothing more. As there is no authority over these sovereign entities, the term "legality" really doesn't apply. Even if a country breaks the Geneva Convention, there is no "legal" authority with rights to punish offenders - the effects of noncompliance are: ...


5

The international body which judges international warcrimes is the International Criminal Court, and its authority is derived from the Rome Statute. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defines the "Crime of Aggression" as: the planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over ...


5

Protocol I Article 52 of the Geneva Conventions states: Civilian objects shall not be the object of attack or of reprisals. Civilian objects are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 2. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those ...


5

IANL but given this was an instance of "armed conflict", and the term for purposes of the Geneva convention is described as: Any difference arising between two States and leading to the intervention of members of the armed forces is an armed conflict within the meaning of Article 2, even if one of the Parties denies the existence of a state of war. ...


4

For the ICC to consider a case it would have to be satisfied: That a crime had been committed that it was competent to judicate on. Murder is such a crime. If a civilian had been targeted by coalition soldiers that would be a murder and so would be within the remit of the court. That the crime occured in a country that was a signatory to the ICC, or the ...


4

There is a good joke from that time: Russian troops in Crimea: Surrender! We surrounded your base. Crimean Ukrainian troops: Russians never surrender! PS: Most of the Ukrainian Crimean army just switched the sides, because of very simple reason - most of the people in Crimea are Russian or Russian-speaking and they support Russian identity compared to ...


4

The US recently issued a US visa ban on ICC judges. So yeah, they could detain them upon arrival if they come and send them back from where they came from. And even if they don't come, it has plenty of tools at its disposal to cause them trouble. For instance it could issue individual sanctions on them and put them on the Specially Designated Nationals And ...


4

I see no reason to assume he had diplomatic status and I haven't heard anybody claim that he did. Diplomatic status is usually relevant in less radical circumstances but even then there are no direct consequences. There is no overarching institutions to enforce diplomatic rules (or international law in general) and violations are simply followed by a tit-...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible