• CashewNut 🏴󠁢󠁥󠁧󠁿@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    5 months ago

    Ah yes the oft-used American Exceptionalist attitude of “we’re too good to bind ourselves to treaties like this”.

    Tale as old as time. It’s why the US isn’t a member of the ICJ and many other international treaties. King’s don’t follow rules - they make them!

    • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      5 months ago

      The US is a member of the International Court of Justice - every country in the United Nations is. Are you thinking of the International Criminal Court?

      Other than that, my answer is “yes but that’s not a bad thing”.

        • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          5 months ago
          1. The actions of an international court will inevitably be political.

          2. The countries that are the worst human rights violators will never voluntary accept the authority of the court.

          In that context, why should the USA give other, potentially hostile countries power over itself? It might have been worthwhile if it meant everyone had to follow the rules but in practice it would just give countries opposed to US foreign policy a tool for interfering without giving the US anything useful.

          (My general view is that the US has made many very harmful mistakes but the era of American hegemony has still been one of remarkable global peace and prosperity. Like democracy, it’s the worst system except for everything else that has been tried. Now we’re seeing serious challenges to this hegemony and if they succeed, the world will get worse for almost everyone, not just for Americans. So if you think the US does more harm than good, we’re unlikely to come to an agreement.)

          Edit: accidentally deleted, reposting.

        • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago
          1. The actions of an international court will inevitably be political.

          2. The countries that are the worst human rights violators will never voluntary accept the authority of the court.

          In that context, why should the USA give other, potentially hostile countries power over itself? It might have been worthwhile if it meant everyone had to follow the rules but in practice it would just give countries opposed to US foreign policy a tool for interfering without giving the US anything useful.

          (My general view is that the US has made many very harmful mistakes but the era of American hegemony has still been one of remarkable global peace and prosperity. Like democracy, it’s the worst system except for everything else that has been tried. Now we’re seeing serious challenges to this hegemony and if they succeed, the world will get worse for almost everyone, not just for Americans. So if you think the US does more harm than good, we’re unlikely to come to an agreement.)