YHK - yet another hacker news clone

ICC judge on what U.S. sanctions mean for her and global courts

126 points rbanffy 1 hour ago 42 comments

msdz 52 minutes ago | parent

Regardless of what one personally thinks about the ICC, this isn’t a good look for neither the US nor Europe.

For the U.S., because sanctioning an “unpleasant”, but in essence harmless individual (geopolitically speaking) is ridiculous. Falling victim to de-banking alone can really ruin one’s life.

And for the EU, because it once again showcases the dependence on U.S. systems for just about anything tech-related in everyday life and work.

wereHamster 43 minutes ago | parent

EU is not necessarily dependent on the US in all the cases that are listed in the article. Take AXA, the insurance company. They could probably survive doing business just in the EU and withdraw entirely out of the US market. But for them it's more lucrative to piss off one judge rather than lose the US share of profits. As the article describes, it's a business decision. But not one that necessarily means life or death (for the company).

QDwQ1 31 minutes ago | parent

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

msdz 28 minutes ago | parent

I’ve read that at least in the case of some EU banks, not following the foreign sanctions is quite literally not an option for them.

If you don’t follow sanctions, other banks either with branches doing business in the U.S., or their partner banks, will refuse to continue banking with you out of fear for not following sanctions – which include banks enabling sanction-circumvention. Essentially, even if the bank doesn’t want to deal with USD (which most banks would still like to do!), you’re still bound by the sanctions. A bank won’t survive long or well if it’s cut off from a majority of other banks.

RobotToaster 11 minutes ago | parent

Which is why it would need to be a law. The only option would be for the US to take the insane move of cutting off every bank in Europe. If they did actually do that, while it would be painful in the short term, it would be incredibly beneficial for Europe in the long term.

cherryteastain 9 minutes ago | parent

This is just a case of carrot vs stick. European countries need to threaten their companies with an even bigger stick if they follow foreign sanctions.

China does this via laws that say, if you do not provide services to Chinese citizens/entities citing foreign sanctions, they can send you to a gulag forever. Seems to be fairly effective, considering how heavily sanctioned Huawei is.

beached_whale 16 minutes ago | parent

Canada did this for the Cuba sanctions years ago. There was/is a semi famous story about Walmart Canada and Cuban PJ's.

abdullahkhalids 27 minutes ago | parent

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...

RobotToaster 10 minutes ago | parent

> 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

Unfortunately, the fact that they haven't done this just makes the EU look like a paper tiger.

nostrademons 27 minutes ago | parent

It undermines the idea of the U.S. as a neutral arbiter for law, order, and free commerce. That may always have been a fiction, but it's a very useful fiction because it underpins U.S. soft power. It's much easier to get consent for being the world hegemon when you act like a benevolent, disinterested hegemon. Once you start becoming a participant - and overriding other institutions that are ostensibly providing neutral, impartial justice just because their decisions are inconvenient for you - you are essentially placing yourself below them and undermining your own legitimacy.

Neutrality and objectivity may be a fiction, but it's one of the most useful fictions that have been invented in the last 500 years.

jfengel 14 minutes ago | parent

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.

laimewhisps 12 minutes ago | parent

I think we will come to realize that liberalism died in Gaza. It exposed all of the hypocrisy that had always been there, it was just hidden under a mask of propaganda. Exposure to the raw events on social media allowed people to see the difference between what was happening and what we were being told. The mask came off and it's not going back on.

MSFT_Edging 27 minutes ago | parent

> Falling victim to de-banking alone

This is especially ironic given how many Trump supporters had "de-banking" as their main issue.

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

DaSHacka 16 minutes ago | parent

> 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.

koolba 26 minutes ago | parent

> Regardless of what one personally thinks about the ICC, this isn’t a good look for neither the US nor Europe.

> For the U.S., because sanctioning an “unpleasant”, but in essence harmless individual (geopolitically speaking) is ridiculous. Falling victim to de-banking alone can really ruin one’s life.

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.

That’s the whole point of such sanctions anyway. It might feel different because it’s a Canadian judge and not a Russian oligarch. But at the core the USA wants to put pressure on something and the means is indirectly applied to an individual.

dmitrygr 24 minutes ago | parent

> Regardless of what one personally thinks about the ICC, this isn’t a good look

Legitimate question. Why should a third party (whom I do not respect)’s opinion of me matter to me? Do you care what my cat thinks about you?

delichon 21 minutes ago | parent

Leaders of republics are still somewhat dependent on popularity, a bug they are working hard to fix.

rwmj 19 minutes ago | parent

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.

dmitrygr 16 minutes ago | parent

Luckily my country is not a party. I don’t want my government (that I elect) outsourcing any decision-making power to a body I do not elect (ICC). As a voter this is a hard NO for me.

rwmj 13 minutes ago | parent

That's fine, it's democracy in action. I don't know why particularly you'd be worried about ICC rulings since they apply to very grave crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the "crime of aggression" (using large scale military forces to invade other countries). Hope you've not been doing any of those!

selectodude 3 minutes ago | parent

I would guess he supports those who do.

slowin 52 minutes ago | parent

> "You start to lose services from American companies, Amazon, Google, potentially Apple, whatever it may be,"

> Her credit cards, issued in the Netherlands and Canada, were canceled. She has managed to keep some bank accounts, but says her banking services are extremely limited and even small transfers can be blocked.

> One of the most serious examples is her health insurance. Prost receives coverage through AXA, the French company that provides insurance for the court. She says the company has refused to pay her claims even though it is not legally required to follow the U.S. sanctions.

This is beyond chilling. You could conceivably self-host some alternatives, although you could easily lose your domain name and internet access. Maybe in a fictional future some sort of crypto currency could help with the de-banking. I don't think there's a solution for losing your health insurance though.

All because the US doesn't want Israel to be held accountable in the ICC. I don't think we've ever been closer to fascism and it's in service for a foreign country (not that it would be ok if it wasn't!).

elAhmo 50 minutes ago | parent

These sanctions are a prime example of influence of a foreign nation on the USA policies.

Planktonne 47 minutes ago | parent

> "We are judges, and we are being told that rather than deciding our cases on the basis of the facts and the law before us, as we are duty bound to do, we're being asked to decide the cases or not decide them in accordance with the wishes of the U.S. government," she said.

Just incredibly naked corruption.

JSR_FDED 42 minutes ago | parent

This is at once thuggish and petty. If the US Govt doesn’t recognize the ICC then…don’t? Going after individual judges is mafia tactics.

It’s also guaranteed to backfire - no judge who by definition deeply believes in the mission and legitimacy of the ICC is going to be deterred by these tactics.

jeroenhd 29 minutes ago | parent

The ICC issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu because of the genocide Israel is committing, that's what upset the Americans. I doubt even Trump would go this far if it wasn't for that.

PorciiVorbesc 11 minutes ago | parent

> that's what upset the Americans

Which Americans? I think it mostly upset the Zionists and Israel(AIPAC) bought members of congress including the US presidential administration, but I imagine a large part of US voter base don't agree with this if polled.

ElevenLathe 3 minutes ago | parent

While there is arguably still some influence from democratic pressure on some areas of US Federal policy, foreign policy and warmaking (including financial warfare like this) are not among them. These have been insulated from public opinion since approximately the the 1940s. It took a massive organization against the draft to (arguably, possibly, maybe -- we'll never really know) shorten the Vietnam war (which, incidentally, was never declared a War by the democratically elected Congress), and that was the high water mark of democratic influence on the security state since WW2.

In short, the opinion of Americans is just not relevant to America's foreign policy decisions.

hananova 40 minutes ago | parent

> One of the most serious examples is her health insurance. Prost receives coverage through AXA, the French company that provides insurance for the court. She says the company has refused to pay her claims even though it is not legally required to follow the U.S. sanctions.

Then it is high time to make the company legally required not to follow the U.S. sanctions.

PorciiVorbesc 13 minutes ago | parent

>Then it is high time to make the company legally required not to follow the U.S. sanctions.

Preach, it's not like the US is gagging for it when it comes to following EU laws and sanctions either.

hliyan 37 minutes ago | parent

In the modern world, to deprive someone of access to the banking system, internet connectivity, or access to their digital identity, is similar to depriving someone of housing or clothing. They're necessities for participation in modern society, so this amounts to a civil death sentence or civiliter mortuus.

ArcHound 29 minutes ago | parent

There is just no alternative to Microsoft. Since they push everything into cloud MS gets centralised control. Cutting MS literally cuts the person off from anything digital.

There is some movement to reduce MS dependency in Europe, but it's not yet there. Until then, this will be a huge lever available to US.

I've written about this back in the day: https://blog.miloslavhomer.cz/microsoft-dependency-has-risks...

Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44381358

franczesko 21 minutes ago | parent

All of this, because one war criminal can't come to Europe anymore

jazzyjackson 21 minutes ago | parent

You can’t convince me that this administration isn’t intentionally driving this country into the ground. Our whole economic growth story is basically that our tech companies can provide service to 8 billion people, not just 0.35 B Americans. Moves like this makes buying American (or even just watching YouTube) toxic.

Edit: not to mention moving our allies toward not complying with US sanctions at all, reducing American soft power

Drupon 18 minutes ago | parent

Normalize hanging in the Hague again. US politicians should not be able to strongarm international law like this and freely visit Europe.

anon291 13 minutes ago | parent

Europeans have a superiority complex in believing their law is 'international'. It's not. American law rests on a joint agreement among the governed. The American people have never agreed to be governed by a foreign court.

laimewhisps 9 minutes ago | parent

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.

tgv 7 minutes ago | parent

> 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.

UncleOxidant 11 minutes ago | parent

> One of the most serious examples is her health insurance. Prost receives coverage through AXA, the French company that provides insurance for the court. She says the company has refused to pay her claims even though it is not legally required to follow the U.S. sanctions.

I would hope the French gov would step in and pay her claims directly.