Rendered at 22:18:22 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
killingtime74 1 days ago [-]
I was just checking which were the top guesses on polymarket before the announcement and this winner was not even a choice on there. At least we know there's no insider trading at the Nobel foundation.
rags2riches 1 days ago [-]
> In accordance with Nobel's will, the prize is selected by the Norwegian Nobel Committee, a five-member committee appointed by the Parliament of Norway unlike all the other awards chosen by the Swedish Nobel Committee.
It makes me wonder- how many people are making a living guessing 'secrets' like this on polymarket? Not with bribes and leaks, but just poor infosec. Seems like interesting work, and probably lucrative with the right skillset.
Melatonic 1 days ago [-]
Good point. You could hack someone and just lurk and never do anything directly malicious that would make them notice your presence
1 days ago [-]
thisisnotmyname 1 days ago [-]
There was an interesting interview on the OddLots podcast recently with people who are doing this. They were remarkably sophisticated.
burger_moon 1 days ago [-]
Do you remember the podcast number or title? Curious to hear more about it
Yes, it doesn’t really have anything to do with the actual Nobels but the name.
munksbeer 1 days ago [-]
I wonder...
If I had inside information, and didn't want to make it obvious, I'd just take the opposite side of any bet for candidates I knew wouldn't win.
ralphington 1 days ago [-]
Sorry, but your reasoning is incomplete. They could have bet millions on the negative result for each of the candidates that were listed. You aren't forced to bet on a winner, you can instead bet on everybody to lose.
The_Blade 1 days ago [-]
this seems a bit odd to me (change the link to 1 day)
If I'm doing a report on the corruption of the LAPD (as an example), I don't tend to bring up the organised crime in LA, let alone the Mafia in Milan.
A report on abuses committed by the IDF should focus on abuses committed by the IDF. There are many reports on the the war crimes of Hamas, and there are many reports on the war crimes of Russia.
You can't water down the behaviour of the IDF by claiming their actions were somehow justified by the actions of another group. That's how the cycle of aggression perpetuates, and how political agendas overrule human decency. That exact behaviour has some very bad connotations in world history.
george916a 1 days ago [-]
[dead]
khalic 1 days ago [-]
What's the name of the committee? I need to check it myself
The report where she acknowledges the massacre on the very first paragraph? OC should have read the damn thing before posting nonsense
rithdmc 1 days ago [-]
Yes, that report. There's no nuance to the OC argument - just denial of facts.
The reactionary propaganda of it being "one sided" or not including "Russia in Ukraine" in a report about genocide in Gaza has been common since the report came out.
andrepd 1 days ago [-]
Why should a report about crimes committed by the IDF write about crimes committed by Russia or by Hamas? That's the most ridiculous attempt at whataboutism I've seen in a long time.
artisinal 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
torlok 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
1 days ago [-]
enrightened 1 days ago [-]
[dead]
flyinglizard 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
bad_haircut72 1 days ago [-]
Israel isnt an occupied nation
flyinglizard 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
ecshafer 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
BigTTYGothGF 1 days ago [-]
One wonders how you would have felt about the 1973 prize if you had been alive at the time.
Great to see that they're not afraid to stand up to the rising authoritarianism
oefrha 1 days ago [-]
And last year it went to someone praising Netanyahu on multiple occasions and tried very hard to kiss Trump’s ass—Trump even got gifted that frigging medal, which was a huge embarrassment for the committee a couple months back. That’s among a long list of extremely questionable recipients. Sure they may have selected the “right” recipient (to some) this year. But why even bother paying attention to a broken clock.
fasterik 1 days ago [-]
María Corina Machado has stood up against authoritarianism in Venezuela for more than a decade. I don't think awarding the prize should require that the recipient is a perfect person or holds all of the "correct" opinions according to bystanders who have no skin in the game.
watwut 24 hours ago [-]
She genuinely fcked that one tho. Despite having skin in the game, that was one big loosing move.
Drupon 1 days ago [-]
That vendepatria hasn't stood up to any authoritarianism; all she's done is buddy up with other authoritarians to try to obtain power. Her giving her Peace Prize to Trump might be one of the most humiliating things she could have done.
fasterik 1 days ago [-]
I don't put much weight on guilt by association. She's led public protests against the Maduro regime and had to go into hiding to escape imprisonment. She's advocated for free and fair elections, rule of law, separation of powers, civil liberties, decentralization, private property, and competitive markets. Can you explain how those actions and ideas are authoritarian?
tsimionescu 1 days ago [-]
She also advocated for the USA to invade her country to depose Maduro. That alone should disqualify her from a Peace prize.
oefrha 21 hours ago [-]
These are just typical talking points of opposition. Many a politician has completely reversed course once they’re in power themself, so judging an opposition politician trying to obtain power on that is pretty stupid for students of history. They don’t typically call for foreign invasion though, and don’t tend to get a Nobel Peace Prize for that.
Oh and don’t get me started on what historically passed as “free and fair elections, rule of law, separation of powers, civil liberties, decentralization, private property, and competitive markets” for puppets ruling South and Central America.
croes 1 days ago [-]
Can you explain how you can praise Trump if you
> advocated for free and fair elections, rule of law, separation of powers, civil liberties, decentralization, private property, and competitive markets.
expedition32 24 hours ago [-]
Venezuela is America's bitch. As is much of South America with the honourable exceptions of Mexico and Cuba.
49595995 1 days ago [-]
[dead]
pezezin 19 hours ago [-]
Upvoted for using the word "vendepatrias".
For those who don't speak Spanish, it means someone who would sell their homeland, the worst kind of traitor.
wat10000 1 days ago [-]
The Peace Prize seems somewhat hit or miss. I'm sure we all remember when it was given to Barack Obama for his lifelong work of not being George W Bush. And of course it was given to Henry Effin' Kissinger.
Maybe this speaks to the difficulty of peace in general. One asshole warmonger can destroy thousands of lives on a whim, but ending or preventing war takes long, steady efforts by large numbers of people. It's not very amenable to an individual prize.
roryirvine 1 days ago [-]
I think the best recipients tend to be those who are involved in "structural" work to advance the cause of peace, rather than those who have been involved in helping settle specific conflicts.
For example, consider the difference between the first five recipients (all for founding various influential peace organisations) vs the sixth (for negotiating an end to the Russo-Japanese War).
In that respect, Pillay seems one of the better laureates of recent years.
peezd 1 days ago [-]
Looking at the history it was awarded to organizations a decent number of times in the past, (even up to Nihon Hidankyo in 2024 which focuses on impact from Nagasaki/Hiroshima and anti-atomic weapon advocacy)....
which to your point does seem to make more sense than singling out an individual.
I think people are making a mistake when they view the Peace Prize as an evaluation of a person's character or their entire career. Often it's targeting specific negotiations or treaties, which in retrospect were failed attempts at peace. This applies to Kissinger in the case of the Paris Peace Accords, Begin/Sadat for the Camp David Accords, Arafat/Peres/Rabin for the Oslo Accords, etc.
wat10000 1 days ago [-]
I can’t comment on the others, but this perspective doesn’t really make Kissinger’s case any better. Even his co-winner thought it was ridiculous and refused the prize.
Arodex 1 days ago [-]
Many "hard science" Nobel prize recipients also turned out to be complete embarrassment of themselves... There is even a name for that. "Nobel disease".
oefrha 1 days ago [-]
These horrible Nobel Peace Prize recipients (and in some cases, Literature Prize recipients as well) are nothing like “Nobel disease”. Said recipient was praising the genocide perpetrator and war criminal (according to this year’s recipient, ironically) as well as performing the ass kissing and inviting foreign invasion before the award was given. The committee bestowed the award knowing very well what they’re getting into, and time and time again it’s nothing more than a political endorsement of a specific kind of “peace”—well, if you consider inviting foreign invasion an act of peace. Actually it’s more like endorsement of a particular ideology, sometimes not even peaceful.
rob74 1 days ago [-]
I mean, if the really gave the prize to Trump, they would completely destroy their credibility. That's better left to FIFA (not that FIFA had a lot of credibility before creating a peace prize to award it to Trump).
smcin 21 hours ago [-]
That was Infantino's FIFA, please. Prior to that FIFA had been corrupt but largely apolitical.
fifilura 1 days ago [-]
The committee is independent from politics although some dictators may at times misunderstand that.
belorn 1 days ago [-]
Where does it say that the Norwegian Nobel Committee is independent from politics?
As stated on their webpage, "As far as possible, the composition of the Committee is to reflect the relative strengths of the political parties in the Storting." - https://www.nobelpeaceprize.org/nobel-committee/
It is independent to the sitting Norwegian government, as members can't have current seats both in the committee and Storting, but several committee do represent the political parties in Norway.
Currently the committee is made from former Leader of the Centre Party, a foreign policy scholar and writer, former Conservative Party cabinet member that was the Minister of Education and Research, a Political scientist and Chief Executive Officer of Utøya AS, and last the former Labour Party Foreign Affairs Secretary.
pczy 1 days ago [-]
I find it hard to see how the committee can be genuinely independent of politics when its members are appointed by the Norwegian Parliament.
originalvichy 1 days ago [-]
Norway is one of the few countries in the world that has ”fuck you” money and a functioning representative electoral system. If the parliament appoints the committee, I find it politically suicidal for any representative to dare to directly interfere with the commissions deliberation and choices. There’s hardly anything positive to gain from it for a representative.
sleepyhead 1 days ago [-]
Asle Toje was appointed by FRP and is very much a political appointed member. While there is not really any indication of meddling by political parties with the committee the appointment is very much politically governed.
chewchewchew 1 days ago [-]
how does this imply that they can be disconnected from politics, some may argue on the contrary due to what you just stated.
originalvichy 1 days ago [-]
It cannot be disconnected from politics. The other poster mentioned independence.
j_maffe 1 days ago [-]
The only country that has "fuck you" anything is unfortunately the US.
originalvichy 1 days ago [-]
The current US administration and its voting population is making sure that this won't be the case soon. It's gonna be hard to win back the good will that was built through decades of diplomacy and trade. Even harder when their conventional armed forces have been underwhelming in the attack on Iran.
idiotsecant 1 days ago [-]
I think recent events have proven otherwise. Asymmetric warfare hurts the big guy more than it hurts the little one. The US was only ever in charge of the world order because most of it's power was not through military action. The threat is there, sure, but the US built most of it's empire off of soft power and diplomacy. Ironically, flexing it's military muscles too much is one of the few sure ways of destroying the American hegemony.
dh2022 1 days ago [-]
Good old Roosevelt’s “Talk softly and carry a big stick” worked really well.
010ED67913 1 days ago [-]
american hegemony has been on the decline for decades. flexing its military is a last ditch attempt to reverse course, it’s not the beginning of the decline. whether it works or not is up for debate and for the future to hold, but what isn’t up for debate is that the soft power gig clearly wasn’t working.
idiotsecant 22 hours ago [-]
If you say so. I think the fact that the US has been the most powerful country for the last 75 years or so has been pretty undisputed, but different realities for different folks i guess
11101010010001 1 days ago [-]
Let's be clear that this is just an opinion and ignores China for example.
whatshisface 1 days ago [-]
Alas, in US art and civic culture, "you" refers to those eligible to serve in the armed forces.
ks2048 1 days ago [-]
"independent from politics" seems to have a few different meanings. One is inherently bad and another is not necessarily bad. Of course the committee is political and the entire nature of the award is political.
baggachipz 1 days ago [-]
There's always FIFA to give out a prize if necessary.
fifilura 1 days ago [-]
I am actually curious who will win the FIFA peace prize next year? Or is it handled out annually?
baggachipz 1 days ago [-]
I think it will only ever have one winner. They may win it again next year (clearly spreading peace throughout the world), but they will be the GOAT for FIFA peace prize winners.
kzrdude 1 days ago [-]
They have really not made the impression that they are independent of politics, all laureates taken together. But if they improve I'm all for it.
fifilura 1 days ago [-]
They have opinions and moral values. And a lot of times they coincide with western democracy ideals.
Or - like today - with rules based global world order.
impossiblefork 1 days ago [-]
You remember Machado though...
Peace prize for someone who was literally arguing for subjecting her own country to an invasion and foreign occupation.
I remember how Swedish state television suddenly flipped very after that, and started cuddling Cuban exiles who wanted the same there. I think this whole thing was certainly coordinated somehow, behind the scenes in order to attempt to legitmize a future US invasion of Venezuela and their general conduct in the Carribean and South America /Pacific.
Things like this happened during expulsion of the Karabach-Armenians too. Then SVT went out and said that "Armenian separatists [had] agreed to leave Azerbaijan", and they left out the artillery bombardement, the deaths by starvation and the ICJ judgement against Azerbaijan's closure of the Lachine corridor, even though such a judgement by an organization like the ICJ would otherwise by first-page news.
So while I can't be sure that there's some NATO-internal press office coordinating how planned future military activity by members is to be presented in the media, it seems that Turkey could achieve that, and that the US could achieve that.
senderista 1 days ago [-]
This is all rather OT, but I thought the general Western mainstream coverage of the Artsakh ethnic cleansing was disgraceful. We're talking about an ethnic community of ~120K that was expelled from land where they've lived for at least a millenium. Does that even get a footnote relative to Palestine? Also Israel's role in arming Azerbaijan (including with suicide drones) was disgracefully unexamined (likewise Russia's abdication of responsibility to a CSTO member).
jordanb 1 days ago [-]
It's possible the Azerbaijan/Armenia thing and lack of outcry or attention helped Russia/Ukraine, Israel/Gaza, Sudan/Darfur, etc get rolling.
When you have revanchast or expansionist power see another one "get away with it" they think to themselves "now is my time to do some dirty work."
throwaway198846 14 hours ago [-]
No it really didn't those conflicts began before Azerbaijan/Armenia and Azerbaijan/Armenia aren't really significant enough to influence anything.
>Our strength lies in our quickness and in our brutality; Genghis Khan has sent millions of women and children into death knowingly and with a light heart. History sees in him only the great founder of States. As to what a weak Western European civilisation asserts about me, that is of no account. I have given the command and I shall shoot everyone who utters one word of criticism, for the goal to be obtained in the war is not that of reaching certain lines but of physically demolishing the opponent. And so for the present only in the East I have put my death-head formations' in place with the command relentlessly and without compassion to send into death many women and children of Polish origin and language. Only thus we can gain the living space (lebensraum) that we need. Who after all is today speaking about the destruction of the Armenians?
The speaker of the above quoted words is Adolph Hitler.
senderista 1 hours ago [-]
Well he's right that it's totally cool for Mongolia to embrace Genghis Khan as a national hero when he killed far more innocents (both absolutely and relatively) than Hitler. I guess the real difference is that Genghis Khan won his wars and Hitler lost (see also: Stalin).
1 days ago [-]
fifilura 1 days ago [-]
Yeah, I guess they act independently from international courts.
impossiblefork 1 days ago [-]
How do you mean, and who?
If you mean Swedish state television, what I meant was that any such major judgement by a UN court like the ICJ, would be front page news.
Remember, this stuff was subject to long and incredibly annoying thing in the Security Council as well, and SVT ignored that too. It was the biggest thing that happened that whole year, basically and the entire coverage by SVT were those words I quoted in the comment before this, that "Armenian separatists have agreed to leave Azerbaijan".
fifilura 1 days ago [-]
The Norwegian nobel prize committee. (Your post was heavily edited, if you think i missed some point.)
impossiblefork 1 days ago [-]
Yeah, I can be slow in getting them finished.
But at that point I can't have mentioned the ICJ stuff, can I? Hmm. Oh well. I get what I get for my editing.
fifilura 1 days ago [-]
Fine, i also prefer being able to edit my comments.
jamiek88 1 days ago [-]
So put them in a draft rather than polluting the thread and making people guess what you meant.
Is your opinion so important that the world needs a quick draft first urgently before you’ve thought about what you want to say properly?
impossiblefork 1 days ago [-]
Well, if I didn't think it was interesting I wouldn't post it. Then of course you reassess and start to wonder whether that initial remark really was worth it, and then your comments begins to evolve, and then you have done this for years and it becomes a style where the evolution of the comment expresses uncertainty and causation.
I always avoid genuinely changing the comments though, appending only, and ceasing to append in case someone responds before I'm done.
1 days ago [-]
kzrdude 1 days ago [-]
The committee in this case is based on retired or ageing Norwegian politicians. That's the construction that we can't do so much about (the will), but I think it's unfortunate for the prize. I think a more independent committee would have been better. I agree with the common criticism that they have given several prizes too rashly or too soon.
I am not sure another committee would do much better though. How would they be chosen? At least these are people with a lot of experience in foreign affairs.
And at the end of the day - it is their price to govern. If they do a bad job, the world will move on.
kzrdude 1 days ago [-]
I think that's fair, and they only get as much importance and attention as we give them.
yostrovs 1 days ago [-]
The committee is selected by the Norwegian parliament, a political body.
p-e-w 1 days ago [-]
And there is a long history of allegations of additional political influence beyond that.
sleepyhead 1 days ago [-]
It is not really. They claim so but the members are appointed by the Norwegian government. One of the members, Asle Toje, is very much a political appointed member by the right-wing FRP party.
This process is decided by the Alfred Nobel will.
1 days ago [-]
AlexandrB 1 days ago [-]
They're so independent from politics they gave a Peace Prize to President "Drone Strikes" Obama after he was in office for merely a year.
myth_drannon 1 days ago [-]
giving the prize to Obama was not political at all.
/s
fifilura 1 days ago [-]
It was political, quite possibly a mistake.
But it was most likely not requested by the Norwegian government.
lostlogin 1 days ago [-]
As dubious as some of the things Obama did, nothing will ever beat Henry Kissinger winning it.
At least Aung San Suu Kyi waited until after her award to do some genocide.
010ED67913 1 days ago [-]
what’s wrong with authoritarianism?
anthonypasq 1 days ago [-]
i think there are plenty of books written about the topic. Im not sure hacker news is the best place to get your answer.
throwitaway222 1 days ago [-]
It seems like both sides want it, but only one admits to wanting it.
JensRantil 1 days ago [-]
Yay, congrats Navi! Thanks for contributing to international law!
jonathanlydall 1 days ago [-]
My wife (also of Indian descent and from Durban) was happy when I forwarded her a BBC link of this news.
She remembered her late mother used to talk a lot of her as she managed to become a lawyer despite being an Indian in apartheid South Africa.
49595995 1 days ago [-]
[dead]
vincnetas 1 days ago [-]
and here you go
US unveils sanctions on ICC in move court condems as 'assault on rule of law'
Committee can’t predict the future man, they only had her actions before 1991. Her showing up at the ICJ was probably a move to appease the military and it didn’t work, they ousted her in 2021 anyway. If you want change argue for awarding it posthumously or that the prize is for worthy actions already done, in which case there are easier targets like Kissinger
akudha 22 hours ago [-]
Awarding the peace prize only posthumously isn't a bad idea at all. The one downside I can think of - someone is awarded the prize after their death, few years later their not-so-nice actions are discovered, now what?
Are there any awards that are without controversies (or at least, little controversy)? I am sure there are unknown people quietly doing great work in this world who deserve the recognition, I suppose the tricky part is finding them. In any case, it is not an easy task to pick a person that most (if not all) people would agree on.
ngaiorn 1 days ago [-]
[dead]
josu 1 days ago [-]
> Committee can’t predict the future man
Sure, but is it really that difficult to give the *Peace* prize to someone who will not commit genocide eventually? Most people in the world never commit genocide.
jamesnorden 1 days ago [-]
You're just repeating yourself.
dam_jackalopes 1 days ago [-]
Apparently it is. Your question seems to indicate that there were some indicators that she was genocidal that they should have picked up on while she was on house arrest and missed. What were they?
nashashmi 1 days ago [-]
Most people in the world are also not very powerful. Amongst the powerful people, how many eventually commit genocide ?
kbelder 1 days ago [-]
A small fraction.
1 days ago [-]
gamblor956 1 days ago [-]
She didn't commit genocide.
After she won the Nobel Prize, the Burmese legislature banded together to give her the power to:“contact ministries, departments, organizations, associations and individuals" to promote democracy and free market capitalism.
Basically, she had the power to talk to people as a figurehead for the hopes and ideals of the country, but no power to actually pass or enforce laws, and no control over law enforcement or the military.
What exactly were you expecting her to do? Say mean things about the military officers committing the genocides and hope they got embarrassed enough to stop?
lostlogin 1 days ago [-]
Do you think asking them to stop a genocide is unreasonable?
But either way, she wasn’t silent on the issue. She minimised what was happening, talked about violence on both sides and defended the military committing a genocide in The Hague. She helped block investigations into it. She is complicit.
‘In December 2019, Aung San Suu Kyi appeared in the International Court of Justice at The Hague where she defended the Burmese military against allegations of genocide against the Rohingya’.
Yes, the military committed mass murder and torture, but genocide has a specific legal definition and the military atrocities did not come anywhere close to that definition. In her appearance, she defends the military against charges of a specific legal nature. She does not deny that the killings took place.
sailingcode 1 days ago [-]
What a courageous woman. There is so much suffering and horror involved.
And Scandinavians aren't shy to set a statement.
nxobject 1 days ago [-]
I'll be amused to see how the administration reacts. Perhaps we'll end up having the Trump Prizes.
elias_t 1 days ago [-]
Apparently they just imposed sanctions on the ICC, not sure it’s related but it’s a strange coincidence [0]
Apropo to nothing, Jack Smith, who is teed up to try Trump for the Jan 6 insurrection, was an investigation coordinator for ICC.
Probably nothing to do with it.
netsharc 1 days ago [-]
Satire is mostly dead in this world of clownocracy, but someone should prank-call FIFA and ask them who's the winner of this year's FIFA Peace Prize...
nxobject 1 days ago [-]
I don’t know which would be funnier: either (a) Trump wins the Peace Prize for a second year in a row, or (b) they go down the designated survivor list of succession…
lostlogin 1 days ago [-]
I’ve had a look to see if they have a contact email as I’d like to ask them about this years award. I can’t find one.
I've been thinking that part of the point of handing out a bunch of science prizes to the techbros yesterday was to try to overshadow the Nobel prizes.
nervai 1 days ago [-]
Reminder that the US administration is on a campaign to dismantle the ICC for echoing similar findings to this Nobel Prize winner in her role at UNHRC [1].
I'm extremely grateful to, and humbled by, these people continuing their brave work knowing they will face the full wrath of the US and Israel govs and their campaigns to dismantle accountability for the worst crimes.
"The ICC poses an intolerable threat to U.S. sovereignty – it claims the authority to prosecute and even imprison American servicemen and officials operating on behalf of America’s national interest. Americans never signed up for this, and all American presidents since the ICC’s ratification have maintained that the ICC does not have jurisdiction over Americans. The ICC previously opened an investigation into U.S. servicemen and intelligence officers and has since refused to close these cases."
Yeah, but somehow if i do some illegal shit according to USA they have no problem arresting me when i come visit (or if they really eager they come to visit me). But how dare you tell us what we can do or cant do INTOLERABLE.
Telemakhos 1 days ago [-]
Yes, that’s what sovereignty means: a sovereign state governs itself and is not governed by others. A sovereign state can agree to abide by certain rules or submit some disputes to another arbiter, but it does so consensually by treaty. The US never ratified a treaty establishing the authority of the ICC, so it has not consented to that diminution of sovereignty.
You as an individual are not sovereign, and when you come to the land over which the US is sovereign, you are subject to US law.
freehorse 1 days ago [-]
> You as an individual are not sovereign, and when you come to the land over which the US is sovereign, you are subject to US law.
And if an american, whom ICC have found guilty on crimes, visits a country which upholds ICC rulings they should be arrested, no?
Nobody talked about kidnapping people in the US or doing anything similar. In contrast, the US is in a habit on (among others)
1. kidnapping
2. bombing
3. otherwise assassinating
4. sanctioning
5. demanding extradition (the only actual "legal" part)
foreign citizens that they do not like. We can also say that no other, non american citizen has actually agreed to these practices either, nor to US authority to be the world serif. So these arguments more like read like monopoly of global violence/authority than "sovereignty".
gamblor956 1 days ago [-]
Yes, that is correct. Any Americans who have been found guilty by the ICC of crimes wouldn't visit signatories of the ICC's establishing treaty.
All zero of them...because no Americans have been found guilty by the ICC of any crimes under its jurisdiction.
DANmode 1 days ago [-]
Whenever the ICC has moved close to scrutinizing the U.S. or its close allies, Washington has retaliated with severe consequences.
cycomanic 1 days ago [-]
The main part of the argument is that the US is very happy to apply their laws to foreign citizens for things they have done on foreign soil and are also happy to legally or illegally extract those citizens from the foreign states. That does in fact directly violate those other states sovereignty.
weberer 1 days ago [-]
>foreign citizens for things they have done on foreign soil
When has this ever happened? You might be referring to Maduro's extradition, but that was due to him being charged with smuggling mass amounts of cocaine into the USA.
During the height of the war on terror(I guess, the laws are still on the books and are being used willy nilly), USA routinely kidnapped people across the globe and put them in dungeons for years, without trial. Probably still happens, who knows.
You can't be serious.
dudefeliciano 1 days ago [-]
> Probably still happens, who knows.
Now they just kill them, also without a trial, judge or jury.
"American forces have conducted at least 71 strikes and killed 239 people the U.S. alleges are “narco-terrorists” since Sept. 2, 2025."
It makes a change from drone strikes on Afghan weddings, which was a thing for a while.
dudefeliciano 14 hours ago [-]
Yes, America has been shitting on international law since forever. Now it’s just a lot more blatant.
j_maffe 1 days ago [-]
Sanctioning ICC judges. They did nothing relevant to US citizens.
dormento 1 days ago [-]
The orange buffoon also attempted (either himself or his cronies) to sanction a brazilian justice for applying brazilian law correctly against the last american-backed, coup-happy president. Since a visa ban, asset freeze and travel restrictions didn't work (on part due to the far superior bank transfer infrastructure) they're now brazenly supporting the right-wing candidate.
9dev 1 days ago [-]
Maybe the purported drug boat bombings have escaped your attention?
lostlogin 1 days ago [-]
Maybe the bombing of a school? Or destroying civilian infrastructure? Assassination of a head of state? Or kidnapping a head of state?
Limiting things to this year.
tosapple 1 days ago [-]
i was just going to bring this up, but a different aspect: I'm not curious about the drug charges, I'm curious about the gun charges as unlevied.
megous 1 days ago [-]
I mentioned several examples of US sanctioned human rights organizations just in this comment thread. That's some US law applied to foreigners.
dudefeliciano 1 days ago [-]
Ever heard of extraordinary renditions?
dormento 1 days ago [-]
> When has this ever happened?
when has it ever not?
> Maduro
(Not an american citizen btw)
> extradition
...
bawolff 1 days ago [-]
> The US never ratified a treaty establishing the authority of the ICC, so it has not consented to that diminution of sovereignty.
And the ICC never tried to diminish their sovereignty. Juridsiction at the icc works the same way as it does with states.
If you commit a crime on the territory of a sovereign state, that state gets to punish you. If you are a citizen of a soverign state then that state gets to punish you.
That is how it works in countries, and that is how it works at the ICC . ICC is no different from any country. The crime has to happen on the territory of a member state or be comitted by a national of a member state (im ignoring the referral from UNSC part as that is obscure)
jameshilliard 20 hours ago [-]
> If you commit a crime on the territory of a sovereign state, that state gets to punish you. If you are a citizen of a soverign state then that state gets to punish you.
One big issue is that uninvolved member states are agreeing to enforce ICC warrants up front. For example members states have refused to arrest Putin despite having a theoretical legal obligation to do so.
> That is how it works in countries, and that is how it works at the ICC . ICC is no different from any country.
The ICC is not a country, has no territory itself and has no independent enforcement mechanisms.
> The crime has to happen on the territory of a member state or be comitted by a national of a member state (im ignoring the referral from UNSC part as that is obscure)
The ICC has issued warrants for individuals for alleged crimes committed in at least two states that reject ICC jurisdiction, those states being Afghanistan and Israel.
bawolff 20 hours ago [-]
> One big issue is that uninvolved member states are agreeing to enforce ICC warrants up front.
Extradition treaties are common among soverign states. This is no different.
> For example members states have refused to arrest Putin despite having a theoretical legal obligation to do so.
Sometimes you have to bow to realism. Nobody is arresting the head of state of a nuclear armed power. That is a death wish.
Also while the idea of throwing aside soverign immunity for international crimes has quite a bit of precedent, especially for multinational tribunals, its not exactly as on firm ground as the rest of this.
> The ICC has issued warrants for individuals for alleged crimes committed in at least two states that reject ICC jurisdiction, those states being Afghanistan and Israel.
The jurisdictional theory for the Israeli nationals is that the crime took place in palestine which is a member state. If a trial took place im sure they would try and argue that palestine is not really a state, not competent to join the rome statute, or failing that, its territorial extent does not include gaza. It would be up to a judge to rule on that
Afghanistan joined signed the treaty. They have not done the proper procedure to withdraw.
jameshilliard 18 hours ago [-]
> Nobody is arresting the head of state of a nuclear armed power.
So what's the point of issuing arrest warrants to heads of nuclear armed powers like Russia/Israel then if they wouldn't get arrested?
> If a trial took place im sure they would try and argue that palestine is not really a state, not competent to join the rome statute, or failing that, its territorial extent does not include gaza.
If you go by the UN it's a non-member observer state. If you go by the de facto government of Gaza they(Hamas) clearly never signed the Rome statute.
> It would be up to a judge to rule on that
Well the real question is what judge even has the authority to rule on something like that, most sovereign states will give their own domestic courts authority above any external/foreign courts.
> Afghanistan joined signed the treaty.
The de jure government may have, but not the de facto government. The Palestine jurisdictional situation is even more confusing since they were never recognized by the UN or Israel as a full state.
> They have not done the proper procedure to withdraw.
They withdrew in practice since the ICC has no independent enforcement capability. Not that it means much anyways since even member states will regularly ignore what they signed.
It's a very strange situation where a courts rulings can be almost completely detached from the de facto jurisdiction on the ground. This whole strategy of asserting jurisdiction by the ICC without having any real enforcement capability makes it look like the ICC is making decisions that are totally detached from reality and undermines their own credibility.
bawolff 16 hours ago [-]
> So what's the point of issuing arrest warrants to heads of nuclear armed powers like Russia/Israel then if they wouldn't get arrested?
Well they won't be heads of state forever. The Israeli guy might even be out of power at the end of the month. And it does restrict their travel - fairly significantly. They of course didn't just issue warrants for heads of state, although the same analysis probably applies to the other accused.
Ultimately i think it was an ideological stand - The ICC prosecutor wanted to say nobody is above the law, even if practically there are limits.
At the same time, i do kind of agree, it undermines the ICC when it puts itself in a position where it knows it cant really win, and makes it seem in some ways like it is making a political statement rather than pursuing justice.
> If you go by the UN it's a non-member observer state. If you go by the de facto government of Gaza they(Hamas) clearly never signed the Rome statute.
Well yeah, that is why its a contentious question. People who recognize the state of Palestine generally view Gaza as part of it, despite the fact that the (official) state of palestine only controlled the area for a very short time long ago. Not to mention Palestine lacking some of the traditional attributes associated with states. It would be up to the judges of the ICC to determine what the ICC thinks. I think there was already a preliminary ruling, but if the Israeli accused surrendered themselves, i'm sure that would have to be relitigated.
> The de jure government [of afghanistan] may have, but not the de facto government
well, de jure & de facto at the time. Governments change, but treaty obligations stay. I think the taliban considers itself the successor state. They could have withdrawn at any point (with 1 year notice) if they felt like it. they still havent.
> They withdrew in practice since the ICC has no independent enforcement capability
The main point of withdrawing is rescinding the ICC's permission to use the states soverign ability to prosecute crimes as a basis of jurisdiction. Like yeah, there is also the cooperating in apregending fugitives bit as well, but that was always mostly on the honor system.
>It's a very strange situation where a courts rulings can be almost completely detached from the de facto jurisdiction on the ground. This whole strategy of asserting jurisdiction by the ICC without having any real enforcement capability makes it look like the ICC is making decisions that are totally detached from reality and undermines their own credibility.
I'll grant you its strange in the Palestine case, where the state of palestine does not have de facto juridsiction in gaza, but that is kind of exceptional.
In most cases the situation is more that the accused has either fled or otherwise not present in the territory, which is pretty normal for courts. Like with ukraine, i'm sure ukraine would have no problem prosecuting putin if he presented himself to ukraine. The issue is he is at large outside of the territory. That seems pretty common thing to happen in normal courts.
People give most of the attention to the weird cases, but i think the less famous icc cases tend to be a lot more normal.
In many ways, the ICC is best viewed as an extradition pact with its own court.
jameshilliard 15 hours ago [-]
> The Israeli guy might even be out of power at the end of the month.
Yeah, although his replacement would be highly unlikely to hand him over to the ICC either.
> They of course didn't just issue warrants for heads of state, although the same analysis probably applies to the other accused.
They did also issue warrants for some dead Hamas terrorists I guess.
> Ultimately i think it was an ideological stand - The ICC prosecutor wanted to say nobody is above the law, even if practically there are limits.
Could be, could also be he needed a distraction from his own misconduct investigation[0] or a bit of both. From what I've seen he rushed a very weak case but it's hard to say exactly why, could be for political reasons. Ultimately it probably just makes the ICC look weak since the warrants would be highly unlikely to be executed.
> Governments change, but treaty obligations stay.
When governments change treaty obligations tend to mostly matter to the degree they are enforce in practice.
> They could have withdrawn at any point (with 1 year notice) if they felt like it. they still havent.
Well...apparently they can't because the Taliban is not UN recognized.[1]
> The main point of withdrawing is rescinding the ICC's permission to use the states soverign ability to prosecute crimes as a basis of jurisdiction. Like yeah, there is also the cooperating in apregending fugitives bit as well, but that was always mostly on the honor system.
I mean, the apprehending fugitives part is kind of important, since that's the enforcement mechanism. Clearly the honor system doesn't seem to be working all that well.
> In most cases the situation is more that the accused has either fled or otherwise not present in the territory, which is pretty normal for courts.
I guess that has happened a bit in Africa, with how dysfunctional the courts there can be I can see cases where something like the ICC would make sense. On the other hand most of the middle east never became member states so it's rather useless there.
> Like with ukraine, i'm sure ukraine would have no problem prosecuting putin if he presented himself to ukraine. The issue is he is at large outside of the territory.
Well they would probably do that themselves rather than hand him over to the ICC. From my understanding ICC is generally only supposed to step in if local courts fail to act.
> In many ways, the ICC is best viewed as an extradition pact with its own court.
Which I guess is the main problem, the enforcement mechanism is kind of terrible, paired with the ICC seemingly deliberately trying pretty hard to stretch their jurisdiction makes them look like they are just playing political games a lot of the time.
The court probably shouldn't be making threats of arrest it can't carry through on. Similar to how Trump was making threats against Iran that he clearly wasn't willing to carry out made him look weak when they called his bluff.
Conversely, American individuals are also not sovereign so when they come to a sovereign land where they are sought (by the state or its partners through treaties) for crimes, they are subject to the the state's laws and treaties.
brookst 1 days ago [-]
This would more persuasive if the US didn’t have a long history of prosecuting, even kidnapping, foreign nationals on foreign soil for violations of US law.
Sharlin 1 days ago [-]
It’s the lucky ones who get prosecuted and actually given some semblance of a fair trial. The less fortunate are just taken to torture centers and left to rot there.
Ozzie_osman 1 days ago [-]
> The US never ratified a treaty establishing the authority of the ICC, so it has not consented to that diminution of sovereignty.
True, they could ignore the ICC, but they shouldn't go around sanctioning and punishing and threatening its judges.
vincnetas 1 days ago [-]
So it should be no surprise to USA that sovereign countries that abide to ICC rulings take actions against individual USA citizens.
pirate787 1 days ago [-]
This isn't true, the US considers prosecution by the ICC as an act of war.
kannanvijayan 1 days ago [-]
The US also considers prosecution of the Epstein child rapists as unnecessary.
Point being, I don't really think that "the US considers" carries a whole lot of weight these days.
DANmode 1 days ago [-]
Our Jimmy Saville moment.
How fun.
tgv 1 days ago [-]
> a sovereign state governs itself and is not governed by others
Hence, if anyone commits a crime in another country, they fall under the jurisdiction of that country. So while the US doesn't have to recognize the ICC, listen to it, or follow its verdicts, other countries are free to do so.
But now the US is threatening the judges of the ICC, which is hypocritical to say the least. It's more of a mafia thing, really. Not surprising, given Trump's background.
bjornsing 1 days ago [-]
Sure. But don’t come traveling here (Sweden) and tell us we can’t submit you to the ICC.
bawolff 1 days ago [-]
> campaign to dismantle the ICC for echoing similar findings
i feel like this misrepresents what the ICC has found. They found there was enough plausible cause to issue a warrant. That means they think that a trial should take place to figure out what is going on. It does not mean they think anyone is guilty. Lots of people subject to warrants end up being found innocent. Its step 1 of the process not the entire process.
And to further clarify, if your implication is that its similar to accusations of genocide - the ICC has jurisdiction over genocide and did not publicly issue a warrant for that charge against any israeli national.
To be clear i find the us campaign disgusting.
megous 1 days ago [-]
Warrant issuance is only done if pre-trial chamber deems the suspects would continue the crimes (they very apparently did - total blockade of Gaza in 2025 leading to starvation of around 1 million people), or tamper with investigation (killing witnesses, etc. - also happened, many journalists were killed on purpose since, organizations tracking harm were banned as "terrorists" in Israel, and that's just what's easy to see, and lots of evidence is being destroyed to this day as Israel continues blowing up and buldozing Gaza, also on purpose, and also against orders of ICJ in the case against Israel as a state, not just against Netanyahu).
And you don't know much about the ICC process and could not have observed it if you think warrant is step 1. It's like step 7. If you did not watch the process, you can still learn the ICC procedure from the rules of the court. It's all freely available on their website.
bawolff 24 hours ago [-]
> Warrant issuance is only done if pre-trial chamber deems the suspects would continue the crimes
This is untrue. ICC sometimes issues warrants for crimes that were in the past where it is unlikely the crime will continue.
>tamper with investigation (killing witnesses, etc
While this is something the ICC could issue a warrant for if there was reasonable cause, to date they have not publicly. So far the ICC has not accused Israel of this.
>And you don't know much about the ICC process and could not have observed it if you think warrant is step 1. It's like step 7. If you did not watch the process, you can still learn the ICC procedure from the rules of the court. It's all freely available on their website.
i was oversimplifying a bit, like yes, there is some process around letting complemtary take its course, but the warrant is the first step where the accused can actually do anything about it. my point was its very far away from a guilty verdict
megous 22 hours ago [-]
Right. I was not very careful with "only if". :)
In any case ICC warrants are not public. Only state parties know the content of the warrants. We don't know what's exactly in them. Only PR is public.
Anyway, it sounded like you're arguing that ICC warrant is something OTP asks for willy nilly on suspicion of a crime. But there is a long prior process where even opening the investigation has to be approved by the chamber or asked for by a state party. Then there's investigation, which in this case was likely quite extensive and helped by third parties, given that just Pillay's UN commission of inquiry alone provided ~7000 pieces of verified evidence and that's just scratching the surface, given that several state parties refered the situation in Palestine to the court, including Palestine itself, court does its own outreach to victims, and I know several projects that periodically sent/d tons of data collected from social media where Israeli state itself publicly posted its massacres of hundreds of civilians per strike early on.
> Anyway, it sounded like you're arguing that ICC warrant is something OTP asks for willy nilly on suspicion of a crime. But there is a long prior process where even opening the investigation has to be approved by the chamber or asked for by a state party.
I don't think its willy nilly. The office of the prosecutor did significant investigation to get to this point. Its just far away from a guilty verdict.
Even at the pretrial stage the court rejected some of the charges proposed by the prosecutor. The prosecutor asked for a charge of extermination, but the pre trial chamber found there wasn't evidence of the requirements being met. Its entirely plausible at an actual trial some of the other charges might be rejected.
From what i understand the conviction rate of the ICC is fairly low (if you include people who had warrants/summons but had case dropped before it went to trial as while as people acquited). Which isn't a bad thing, it means it is a fair court.
> Pillay's UN commission of inquiry alone provided ~7000 pieces of verified evidence
Justice isn't a numbers game. The quality not the quantity rules the day (not necessarily saying the evidence isn't quality - i havent seen it, just that the number of items is irrelavent)
> several state parties refered the situation in Palestine to the court,
state party referrals tend to be a joke. People refer things to the court for all sorts of political grandstanding reasons. The prosecutor is the person that matters when bringing a case.
Ultimately, part of the reason to have trials is so the accused can present evidence in their defense. Its an important part of determining a just verdict.
Vaslo 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
9dev 1 days ago [-]
Oh, that’s true. But when you come to a foreign country, you’ll have to recognise its laws. And if that country happens to have ratified the ICC, and the ICC has a warrant for you, well then you’re bound for trial.
It’s the same rules you apply yourself, right?
khalic 1 days ago [-]
Oh but others must recognize America's laws right? Oh the hypocrisy
Vaslo 1 days ago [-]
It’s not hypocrisy. Don’t follow them. But when your interests conflict with ours, then we will exert our influence.
bad_haircut72 1 days ago [-]
As Americas star continues to wane over the coming decades y'all are really going to regret this "might makes right" stance.
Vaslo 1 days ago [-]
Not very worried about it. Im 100% sure we will be fine.
khalic 1 days ago [-]
you might want to check your infant mortality rate...
dudefeliciano 13 hours ago [-]
he's not an infant so why would he care /s
lioeters 1 days ago [-]
Delusional, but expected.
croon 1 days ago [-]
It's not hypocrisy if your argument is that "might makes right", but if your argument is that the US has other principles, it is indeed hypocrisy.
And in that case, so much for "western ideals", if it's purely "America first, no ideals".
ks2048 1 days ago [-]
Sometimes self-interest leads to cooperation.
Vaslo 1 days ago [-]
I agree with you.
khalic 1 days ago [-]
No you will kidnap people, have them killed, silenced, accounts freeze, etc. It's not merely "exercising influence", it's coercion. It's exactly the case here, it's the US's prerogative not to follow the ICCs judgements, it's none of your fkn business what laws other countries have. If a US citizen is in another territory, it's that territory's law that count.
Your government also routinely ignores its own laws and judgements.
Hypocrisy at all the levels, and lying to try to still have the moral high ground.
mda 1 days ago [-]
Typical American hubris.
tchalla 1 days ago [-]
I wish more people understand this very clearly instead of hiding behind "democratic values" and other moral lectures.
dudefeliciano 1 days ago [-]
doing a pretty shit job at that too tbh
Vaslo 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
enaaem 1 days ago [-]
The US is a colony of Israel.
malikx 18 hours ago [-]
Congratulations to everyone who won
carefree-bob 1 days ago [-]
Unfortunately Nobel Peace prizes are stained with the reputation of going to some pretty undeserving people (Henry Kissinger, Shimon Peres, Obama, etc) and this mars the image of the prize even as a whole.
There are actually people who spend their lives working for peace, and die in the effort. And then there are people like Henry Kissinger. They share the same prize.
More recently, the prizes are even more obviously politicized(1), so when the west is trying to overthrow Iran, it gives the prize to western-backed dissidents fighting for "women's rights" in Iran - the nation that has female airline pilots and university professors, but not to the scores of dissidents executed by Saudi Arabia, where women only recently got the right to drive. None of those murdered by Saudi Arabia, even if they died arguing for women's rights, will ever qualify for the Nobel Peace price. Not while Iran still needs to be overthrown.
>"There are actually people who spend their lives working for peace, and die in the effort."
These people would not be eligible for the Nobel Peace Prize, because its rules disallow deceased candidates.
lostlogin 1 days ago [-]
It would be politically untenable to condemn Saudi, so there is that element too.
If they cut up the journalist Jamal Khashoggi with a bone saw on foreign soil and get away with it, why would they change?
nickff 23 hours ago [-]
I think you might have replied to the wrong comment; my post said nothing about politics or Saudi Arabia.
lostlogin 4 hours ago [-]
Sorry, I wasn’t clear. The grandparent comment mentioned Saudi and I was saying that there is no one anyone condemns Saudi even if ‘must be alive’ rule didn’t exist.
This kind of explains why the Trump clique declared total war against
the International Court of Justice against potential pedophile victims.
We really need to do our own investigation into the Epstein situation -
the whole behaviour of Trump acting here is very strange. Obviously
Trump acts on behalf of other people telling him what to do, be it him
acting as agent Krasnov serving Putin, or here, in the name of Netanyahu.
Trump is like the ultimate tool. And he is getting richer by the second.
Why is that money not given to The People?
mandeepj 1 days ago [-]
This announcement has become an annual troll event for the lunatic in the office; I heard he was pretty pissed off this morning, although that’s usually the case with him.
ls-a 1 days ago [-]
[dead]
stefantalpalaru 1 days ago [-]
[dead]
CurbStomper4 1 days ago [-]
[dead]
thecatthe 1 days ago [-]
[dead]
myth_drannon 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
prometheus1992 1 days ago [-]
is there no israeli lobby in washington though? have you heard of AIPAC?
Drop of light in a sea of darkness.
I wasn't expecting seeing this in hn. This site is infected.
r2_pilot 1 days ago [-]
You're welcome to find a more suitable place to visit. Nobody is requiring your presence here, unless they are. Which is a different conversation.
hparadiz 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
khalic 1 days ago [-]
You mean war criminals like Netanyahu?
xg15 1 days ago [-]
Get out of the Israeli bubble please...
cramer4next 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
dudefeliciano 1 days ago [-]
No, being in a bubble means being disconnected from the broader reality.
cramer4next 1 days ago [-]
Not from my perspective. Being in bubble means your lacking experience and living a sheltered life. Reality is subjective to ones view.
dudefeliciano 1 days ago [-]
> lacking experience and living a sheltered life.
Hence "Israeli Bubble", sheltered from the reality of their (government/army) actions, convinced to be the most moral army in the world.
> Reality is subjective to ones view.
Maybe your subjective reality, that's your thoughts and feelings. But there is an objective reality, like tens of thousands of children killed, the use of a starvation campaign in Gaza, all of Gaza City being turned to rubble which you can see for yourself on google maps satellite view, and many more such war crimes that have been factually proven.
cramer4next 1 days ago [-]
I'm still confused how this has anything to do with a noble prize?
Secondly did you ever watch the aftermath of the U.S dropping atomic bombs on Japan? How many children were killed? How many innocent people suffered? Thats the "reality" of war.
netsharc 1 days ago [-]
Not the person you were conversing with, but: Sheesh, how dismissive of the tens of thousands of dead (both in Gaza and in Japan).
If you want to claim to be more civilized than Hamas and their cheerleaders, not being angry when "your side" doesn't take all effort to kill civilians is not how to do it.
Some in Palestine cheered when 7 October happened. Some cheered when 9/11 happened. If you ask them "how can you, those innocents died for no reason" and they replied "That's the 'reality' of war", how would you feel?
And if you consider them uncivilized barbarics for not caring, how do you view yourself? Ah yeah of course you're different, you're on the "right side", and for you "it's fine" (or "it's reality of war") when the "wrong" innocents die...
cramer4next 1 days ago [-]
How am I being dismissive? I simply stated two things around the discussion of "bubble" and "reality". I made no opinion or view, rather I defined bubble and stated the reality of what war really is.
Nothing I said is about whats wrong or right. I simply pointed out historical facts. The same way the original comment I replied to.
Innocent people everyday are victims in a system they have absolutely no control over. Especially in cases of war and international affairs. None of these statements reflect any of my personal feelings or passing a judgement on any grouping of people.
mvelbaum 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
gyanchawdhary 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
ks2048 1 days ago [-]
> "At this point"
Of the original 5 Nobel prize categories, 2 were always not about science.
fuzzfactor 1 days ago [-]
That's what I was thinking.
I'm a lifelong scientist but it should be obvious that the Peace Prize is supposed to be bigger than science.
nashashmi 1 days ago [-]
Science and economics contributes to weapons. This prize was the odd ball to counter weapons with peace
gyanchawdhary 1 days ago [-]
yes, love is the answer to everything
gyanchawdhary 1 days ago [-]
yes ... but who is she? and what has she actually done?
for comparison, i knew nothing about margaret hamilton or bill draper before reading their obituaries on HN this month. it literally took a few sentences to understand what legends they were .. not just in their respective domains, but in terms of their broader impact on humanity ..
with this navi lady, i've scrolled through two pages of text and still don't have a clear picture of what she actually DID to deserve whatever greatness the Nobel seems to bestow upon her.
i mean, if you can't even explain to a layman, in plain english, what someone actually DID to earn a prize of this stature .. without resorting to a laundry list of causes and buzzwords ... then what exactly are we rewarding here ? Her kindness ? Decency ? Morality ? wtf
prometheus1992 1 days ago [-]
you seem pissed that they wasted a noble on someone that you don't approve of. do you not think that it might be YOU who might not have the ability to understand every field with as much clarity as you understand software after reading a few lines.
gyanchawdhary 1 days ago [-]
emmmm .. but not understanding a fieled fully doesnt mean we cant expect a clear explanation of why someone deserves its highest honour ..
ps: im not a software guy
nsriv 1 days ago [-]
The announcement pretty clearly lays out what she's done to earn it, acknowledging that while international law isn't perfect, the fact-finding process of its practice is important and sets a precedent for continued adherence to legal principles. Her devotion to that practice and influence on introducing sexual assault and propaganda as charges of incitement to genocide are significant contributions backed by legal victories she was instrumental in winning.
My opinion is that yes, while international law rarely leads to punitive justice as many would like to see it executed, bad actors attacking these legal institutions demonstrate their importance in the court of public opinion and legitimacy.
Hope that gave you some Gyan, Mr. Chawdhary. Please remember that it's a big world out there and human endeavor has many paths to take beyond just science or what one person can understand by skimming an announcement.
gyanchawdhary 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
mda 1 days ago [-]
You didn't understand her accomplishments and merits so she doesn't deserve it. Oh my, maybe ask your favorite llm for an eli5 then?
gyanchawdhary 1 days ago [-]
i actually fired my sw devs thanks to llms .. so maybe your idea is not bad afterall ..
mda 1 days ago [-]
Dont forget to add "in really really simple terms" to your prompt.
gyanchawdhary 10 hours ago [-]
Yes Claude, I mean software engineer lol
1 days ago [-]
jmye 1 days ago [-]
[dead]
Reubachi 1 days ago [-]
I suggest looking at the original Nobel* awards before deriding "modern politics" as a boogyman
alexnewman 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
ReptileMan 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
jeltz 1 days ago [-]
Yes, but what has that to do with this year's winner?
ReptileMan 1 days ago [-]
Everything. She hasn't contributed to world peace. She has not stopped wars, she has not prevented them, south africa is not more peaceful than it was before.
Just rename the award to whatever - being outstanding human, standing up for human rights or whatever.
If Putin decides to freeze or stop the war in Ukraine tomorrow he will contribute more to world peace objectively than last 10 of the winners combined. Should we give him award too?
_djo_ 1 days ago [-]
What does the condition of South Africa have to do with her? She doesn't run it and never has.
Though South Africa is, since 1994, a peaceful neighbour that has worked steadfastly to end and prevent wars on the African continent. Unlike the situation during Apartheid.
baggy_trough 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
bigyabai 1 days ago [-]
Thanks for your laconic, unexplained virtue signal of a response.
FabHK 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
throwfaraway135 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
gpvos 1 days ago [-]
It is, like many things, how much meaning you attach to it yourself. Apparently Donald T. thinks it's very important, he makes a lot of fuss about it.
Anyway, the NPP is one of the things that tries to push humanity on a broad scale in a better direction, and I'm grateful for that. It is important to at least speak out about injustice, and to celebrate those who do so, otherwise those injustices are never going to be fixed (I'm not even talking about punishing, although that should be done).
throwfaraway135 1 days ago [-]
I get the sentiment, but if you hijack peoples attention by pretending "look we are civilized, we have humanitarian organizations" instead showing the ugly reality, this in my book is worse.
gpvos 1 days ago [-]
Fair enough, too many western countries including my government keep supporting countries perpetrating war crimes/genocide (often ignoring popular sentiment btw).
And luckily we have journalism prizes as well, often for people showing the ugly reality.
CaptWorld 1 days ago [-]
Don't tell me that you think there's genocide in gaza?
steinvakt2 1 days ago [-]
Look at any recent pictures. Gaza was basically nuked
CaptWorld 18 hours ago [-]
Bruh 70-80k that too we don't know how many are civilians/militants and hamas is like prime example to use civilian clothing so as to not even distinguish themselves from civilians and they steal aid, oppress their own people and use civilian shields like crazy and even with all that it's jz 70k? That's some genocide dude.. they shouldn't have launched their genocidal campaign on October 7th then.. FAFO in real time
Guys,there is no vast tunnel infrastructure operated by hamas so we must close our mind to the possibility that hamas is the evil guy compared to idf /s
throwfaraway135 1 days ago [-]
I would describe it more of a massacre/war crimes, you can't compare it to something like the East Timur genocide, that said it is going on for a long time.
CaptWorld 18 hours ago [-]
Allies committed more war crimes in Warsaw than what idf was doing.. allies didn't door knock and all that weak shit, we just bombarded the whole cities.. IDF committed less war crimes compared to what hamas does which oppress its own people and steal aid to enrich themselves instead of surrendering to superior idf and use military outfits in combat
jameshilliard 24 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
isgb 24 hours ago [-]
While there may be legitimate concern with her, I’d rather read sources that aren’t pro-Israel lobby groups.
jameshilliard 22 hours ago [-]
> While there may be legitimate concern with her, I’d rather read sources that aren’t pro-Israel lobby groups.
You can find details from other sources as well.[0][1][2][3][4][5][6] She quite often runs cover for antisemitism.
I only checked the Guardian article but there's nothing in there that shows she ran cover for anything.
jameshilliard 15 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
tuwtuwtuwtuw 13 hours ago [-]
A pro-Israel lobby group is against a woman that is critizing Israel? I'm shocked!
Regardless of how you feel about this woman - and even what the actual facts are - why would you use a Pro Israel lobby group as source for a topic like this? That's just bizarre.
Either you don't understand how to judge sources, or you are knowingly acting in bad faith. That makes your view completely irrelevant. Good job.
jameshilliard 4 hours ago [-]
> Regardless of how you feel about this woman - and even what the actual facts are - why would you use a Pro Israel lobby group as source for a topic like this? That's just bizarre.
Being pro-Israel doesn't make their claims inaccurate and I did also link to other sources as well.[0] The main reason I linked to UN Watch was that they have a reasonably readable and compact aggregate of Navi Pillay's record on issues around antisemitism and bias. Mainstream news outlets have obviously reported on Navi Pillay as well but they typically only report on individual events as they happen.
> Either you don't understand how to judge sources, or you are knowingly acting in bad faith. That makes your view completely irrelevant. Good job.
I usually try to judge sources primarily based on whether or not they have a history of providing factually accurate information. Do you think UN Watch is putting out inaccurate information here?
and Menahem Begin and Itzhak Rabin and Shimon Perez
jameshilliard 21 hours ago [-]
> Menahem Begin
Why? From my understanding he was given the award for his part in negotiating what ultimately became the Camp David Accords, which have held to this day.
> Itzhak Rabin and Shimon Perez
At least they were negotiating for peace in good faith, unlike Arafat[0].
Has she openly opposed Trump? I don't recognize the name, and the linked article is pretty vague.
heyitsmedotjayb 1 days ago [-]
next year it should go to a heckin pupper!
737min 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
dang 1 days ago [-]
It looks like your account has been using HN primarily for ideological/political/national/religious battle. That's a line at which we ban accounts, regardless of what you're for or against. There's further explanation at https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme....
The problem is you have to be noteworthy enough to be considered; and are going to be in close proximity of atrocities (hopefully trying to prevent them). Realistically this means a higher percentage of laureate are now generally accepted to have some complicity in atrocities then the percentage of normal people.
brookst 1 days ago [-]
Which maybe is ok? It’s not a “most perfect person” prize, it’s a “did the most to advance peace” prize.
It makes people uncomfortable, but maybe someone who reduces net suffering despite being responsible for some suffering is doing more than normal people who do no harm, but do no good?
billnad 1 days ago [-]
Yikes, never looked at it that way. I always think of the people making things better, or that move the needle more worldwide but you are very right, the Nobel Prize is going to be awarded to someone who has been in war zones where there are tough decisions to be made
cindyllm 1 days ago [-]
[dead]
andrelaszlo 1 days ago [-]
The problem with the Peace Prize in general, or this time? It's not entirely clear to me what you're trying to say.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize
There's been accusations of leaks in connection to bets with the Nobel Price in Literature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_in_Literature_cont...
https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1o383a1/oc...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/oct/10/nobel-peace-pr...
https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/1o51k61/upd...
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/these-are-the-sharps-a...
You know where to head for the cat memes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Econom...
If I had inside information, and didn't want to make it obvious, I'd just take the opposite side of any bet for candidates I knew wouldn't win.
https://polymarket.com/event/nobel-peace-prize-winner-2026-1...
Yulia Navalnaya (widow of Alexei Navalny) had a ton of play, and Navi Pillay didn't even have a market?
edit: and what dang just added about the US - ICC sanctions
Statement by Navi Pillay, 28 October 2025
https://www.un.org/unispal/document/statement-by-navi-pillay...
A report on abuses committed by the IDF should focus on abuses committed by the IDF. There are many reports on the the war crimes of Hamas, and there are many reports on the war crimes of Russia.
You can't water down the behaviour of the IDF by claiming their actions were somehow justified by the actions of another group. That's how the cycle of aggression perpetuates, and how political agendas overrule human decency. That exact behaviour has some very bad connotations in world history.
The reactionary propaganda of it being "one sided" or not including "Russia in Ukraine" in a report about genocide in Gaza has been common since the report came out.
US imposes sanctions on ICC hours after former judge wins Nobel Peace Prize - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50021066 - Oct 2026 (288 comments)
Oh and don’t get me started on what historically passed as “free and fair elections, rule of law, separation of powers, civil liberties, decentralization, private property, and competitive markets” for puppets ruling South and Central America.
> advocated for free and fair elections, rule of law, separation of powers, civil liberties, decentralization, private property, and competitive markets.
For those who don't speak Spanish, it means someone who would sell their homeland, the worst kind of traitor.
Maybe this speaks to the difficulty of peace in general. One asshole warmonger can destroy thousands of lives on a whim, but ending or preventing war takes long, steady efforts by large numbers of people. It's not very amenable to an individual prize.
For example, consider the difference between the first five recipients (all for founding various influential peace organisations) vs the sixth (for negotiating an end to the Russo-Japanese War).
In that respect, Pillay seems one of the better laureates of recent years.
which to your point does seem to make more sense than singling out an individual.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_Peace_Prize_laur...
As stated on their webpage, "As far as possible, the composition of the Committee is to reflect the relative strengths of the political parties in the Storting." - https://www.nobelpeaceprize.org/nobel-committee/
It is independent to the sitting Norwegian government, as members can't have current seats both in the committee and Storting, but several committee do represent the political parties in Norway.
Currently the committee is made from former Leader of the Centre Party, a foreign policy scholar and writer, former Conservative Party cabinet member that was the Minister of Education and Research, a Political scientist and Chief Executive Officer of Utøya AS, and last the former Labour Party Foreign Affairs Secretary.
Or - like today - with rules based global world order.
Peace prize for someone who was literally arguing for subjecting her own country to an invasion and foreign occupation.
I remember how Swedish state television suddenly flipped very after that, and started cuddling Cuban exiles who wanted the same there. I think this whole thing was certainly coordinated somehow, behind the scenes in order to attempt to legitmize a future US invasion of Venezuela and their general conduct in the Carribean and South America /Pacific.
Things like this happened during expulsion of the Karabach-Armenians too. Then SVT went out and said that "Armenian separatists [had] agreed to leave Azerbaijan", and they left out the artillery bombardement, the deaths by starvation and the ICJ judgement against Azerbaijan's closure of the Lachine corridor, even though such a judgement by an organization like the ICJ would otherwise by first-page news.
So while I can't be sure that there's some NATO-internal press office coordinating how planned future military activity by members is to be presented in the media, it seems that Turkey could achieve that, and that the US could achieve that.
When you have revanchast or expansionist power see another one "get away with it" they think to themselves "now is my time to do some dirty work."
>Our strength lies in our quickness and in our brutality; Genghis Khan has sent millions of women and children into death knowingly and with a light heart. History sees in him only the great founder of States. As to what a weak Western European civilisation asserts about me, that is of no account. I have given the command and I shall shoot everyone who utters one word of criticism, for the goal to be obtained in the war is not that of reaching certain lines but of physically demolishing the opponent. And so for the present only in the East I have put my death-head formations' in place with the command relentlessly and without compassion to send into death many women and children of Polish origin and language. Only thus we can gain the living space (lebensraum) that we need. Who after all is today speaking about the destruction of the Armenians?
The speaker of the above quoted words is Adolph Hitler.
If you mean Swedish state television, what I meant was that any such major judgement by a UN court like the ICJ, would be front page news.
Remember, this stuff was subject to long and incredibly annoying thing in the Security Council as well, and SVT ignored that too. It was the biggest thing that happened that whole year, basically and the entire coverage by SVT were those words I quoted in the comment before this, that "Armenian separatists have agreed to leave Azerbaijan".
But at that point I can't have mentioned the ICJ stuff, can I? Hmm. Oh well. I get what I get for my editing.
Is your opinion so important that the world needs a quick draft first urgently before you’ve thought about what you want to say properly?
I always avoid genuinely changing the comments though, appending only, and ceasing to append in case someone responds before I'm done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_of_Thorbj%C3%B8rn...
I am not sure another committee would do much better though. How would they be chosen? At least these are people with a lot of experience in foreign affairs.
And at the end of the day - it is their price to govern. If they do a bad job, the world will move on.
This process is decided by the Alfred Nobel will.
/s
But it was most likely not requested by the Norwegian government.
At least Aung San Suu Kyi waited until after her award to do some genocide.
She remembered her late mother used to talk a lot of her as she managed to become a lawyer despite being an Indian in apartheid South Africa.
US unveils sanctions on ICC in move court condems as 'assault on rule of law'
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj20vkkx3rdvo
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2026/pillay/facts/
I wonder who committed said genocide... oh, yeah, the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi.
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/1991/kyi/facts/
Are there any awards that are without controversies (or at least, little controversy)? I am sure there are unknown people quietly doing great work in this world who deserve the recognition, I suppose the tricky part is finding them. In any case, it is not an easy task to pick a person that most (if not all) people would agree on.
Sure, but is it really that difficult to give the *Peace* prize to someone who will not commit genocide eventually? Most people in the world never commit genocide.
After she won the Nobel Prize, the Burmese legislature banded together to give her the power to:“contact ministries, departments, organizations, associations and individuals" to promote democracy and free market capitalism.
Basically, she had the power to talk to people as a figurehead for the hopes and ideals of the country, but no power to actually pass or enforce laws, and no control over law enforcement or the military.
What exactly were you expecting her to do? Say mean things about the military officers committing the genocides and hope they got embarrassed enough to stop?
But either way, she wasn’t silent on the issue. She minimised what was happening, talked about violence on both sides and defended the military committing a genocide in The Hague. She helped block investigations into it. She is complicit.
‘In December 2019, Aung San Suu Kyi appeared in the International Court of Justice at The Hague where she defended the Burmese military against allegations of genocide against the Rohingya’.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aung_San_Suu_Kyi
Yes, the military committed mass murder and torture, but genocide has a specific legal definition and the military atrocities did not come anywhere close to that definition. In her appearance, she defends the military against charges of a specific legal nature. She does not deny that the killings took place.
[0] US imposes sanctions on ICC hours after former judge wins Nobel Peace Prize - https://www.reuters.com/world/us-imposes-sanctions-internati...
Probably nothing to do with it.
https://www.fifa.com/en
I'm extremely grateful to, and humbled by, these people continuing their brave work knowing they will face the full wrath of the US and Israel govs and their campaigns to dismantle accountability for the worst crimes.
[1] https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/20...
Yeah, but somehow if i do some illegal shit according to USA they have no problem arresting me when i come visit (or if they really eager they come to visit me). But how dare you tell us what we can do or cant do INTOLERABLE.
You as an individual are not sovereign, and when you come to the land over which the US is sovereign, you are subject to US law.
And if an american, whom ICC have found guilty on crimes, visits a country which upholds ICC rulings they should be arrested, no?
Nobody talked about kidnapping people in the US or doing anything similar. In contrast, the US is in a habit on (among others)
1. kidnapping
2. bombing
3. otherwise assassinating
4. sanctioning
5. demanding extradition (the only actual "legal" part)
foreign citizens that they do not like. We can also say that no other, non american citizen has actually agreed to these practices either, nor to US authority to be the world serif. So these arguments more like read like monopoly of global violence/authority than "sovereignty".
All zero of them...because no Americans have been found guilty by the ICC of any crimes under its jurisdiction.
When has this ever happened? You might be referring to Maduro's extradition, but that was due to him being charged with smuggling mass amounts of cocaine into the USA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecution_of_Nicol%C3%A1s_Ma...
You can't be serious.
Now they just kill them, also without a trial, judge or jury.
"American forces have conducted at least 71 strikes and killed 239 people the U.S. alleges are “narco-terrorists” since Sept. 2, 2025."
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/6132578-pentagon-drug-car...
Limiting things to this year.
when has it ever not?
> Maduro
(Not an american citizen btw)
> extradition
...
And the ICC never tried to diminish their sovereignty. Juridsiction at the icc works the same way as it does with states.
If you commit a crime on the territory of a sovereign state, that state gets to punish you. If you are a citizen of a soverign state then that state gets to punish you.
That is how it works in countries, and that is how it works at the ICC . ICC is no different from any country. The crime has to happen on the territory of a member state or be comitted by a national of a member state (im ignoring the referral from UNSC part as that is obscure)
One big issue is that uninvolved member states are agreeing to enforce ICC warrants up front. For example members states have refused to arrest Putin despite having a theoretical legal obligation to do so.
> That is how it works in countries, and that is how it works at the ICC . ICC is no different from any country.
The ICC is not a country, has no territory itself and has no independent enforcement mechanisms.
> The crime has to happen on the territory of a member state or be comitted by a national of a member state (im ignoring the referral from UNSC part as that is obscure)
The ICC has issued warrants for individuals for alleged crimes committed in at least two states that reject ICC jurisdiction, those states being Afghanistan and Israel.
Extradition treaties are common among soverign states. This is no different.
> For example members states have refused to arrest Putin despite having a theoretical legal obligation to do so.
Sometimes you have to bow to realism. Nobody is arresting the head of state of a nuclear armed power. That is a death wish.
Also while the idea of throwing aside soverign immunity for international crimes has quite a bit of precedent, especially for multinational tribunals, its not exactly as on firm ground as the rest of this.
> The ICC has issued warrants for individuals for alleged crimes committed in at least two states that reject ICC jurisdiction, those states being Afghanistan and Israel.
The jurisdictional theory for the Israeli nationals is that the crime took place in palestine which is a member state. If a trial took place im sure they would try and argue that palestine is not really a state, not competent to join the rome statute, or failing that, its territorial extent does not include gaza. It would be up to a judge to rule on that
Afghanistan joined signed the treaty. They have not done the proper procedure to withdraw.
So what's the point of issuing arrest warrants to heads of nuclear armed powers like Russia/Israel then if they wouldn't get arrested?
> If a trial took place im sure they would try and argue that palestine is not really a state, not competent to join the rome statute, or failing that, its territorial extent does not include gaza.
If you go by the UN it's a non-member observer state. If you go by the de facto government of Gaza they(Hamas) clearly never signed the Rome statute.
> It would be up to a judge to rule on that
Well the real question is what judge even has the authority to rule on something like that, most sovereign states will give their own domestic courts authority above any external/foreign courts.
> Afghanistan joined signed the treaty.
The de jure government may have, but not the de facto government. The Palestine jurisdictional situation is even more confusing since they were never recognized by the UN or Israel as a full state.
> They have not done the proper procedure to withdraw.
They withdrew in practice since the ICC has no independent enforcement capability. Not that it means much anyways since even member states will regularly ignore what they signed.
It's a very strange situation where a courts rulings can be almost completely detached from the de facto jurisdiction on the ground. This whole strategy of asserting jurisdiction by the ICC without having any real enforcement capability makes it look like the ICC is making decisions that are totally detached from reality and undermines their own credibility.
Well they won't be heads of state forever. The Israeli guy might even be out of power at the end of the month. And it does restrict their travel - fairly significantly. They of course didn't just issue warrants for heads of state, although the same analysis probably applies to the other accused.
Ultimately i think it was an ideological stand - The ICC prosecutor wanted to say nobody is above the law, even if practically there are limits.
At the same time, i do kind of agree, it undermines the ICC when it puts itself in a position where it knows it cant really win, and makes it seem in some ways like it is making a political statement rather than pursuing justice.
> If you go by the UN it's a non-member observer state. If you go by the de facto government of Gaza they(Hamas) clearly never signed the Rome statute.
Well yeah, that is why its a contentious question. People who recognize the state of Palestine generally view Gaza as part of it, despite the fact that the (official) state of palestine only controlled the area for a very short time long ago. Not to mention Palestine lacking some of the traditional attributes associated with states. It would be up to the judges of the ICC to determine what the ICC thinks. I think there was already a preliminary ruling, but if the Israeli accused surrendered themselves, i'm sure that would have to be relitigated.
> The de jure government [of afghanistan] may have, but not the de facto government
well, de jure & de facto at the time. Governments change, but treaty obligations stay. I think the taliban considers itself the successor state. They could have withdrawn at any point (with 1 year notice) if they felt like it. they still havent.
> They withdrew in practice since the ICC has no independent enforcement capability
The main point of withdrawing is rescinding the ICC's permission to use the states soverign ability to prosecute crimes as a basis of jurisdiction. Like yeah, there is also the cooperating in apregending fugitives bit as well, but that was always mostly on the honor system.
>It's a very strange situation where a courts rulings can be almost completely detached from the de facto jurisdiction on the ground. This whole strategy of asserting jurisdiction by the ICC without having any real enforcement capability makes it look like the ICC is making decisions that are totally detached from reality and undermines their own credibility.
I'll grant you its strange in the Palestine case, where the state of palestine does not have de facto juridsiction in gaza, but that is kind of exceptional.
In most cases the situation is more that the accused has either fled or otherwise not present in the territory, which is pretty normal for courts. Like with ukraine, i'm sure ukraine would have no problem prosecuting putin if he presented himself to ukraine. The issue is he is at large outside of the territory. That seems pretty common thing to happen in normal courts.
People give most of the attention to the weird cases, but i think the less famous icc cases tend to be a lot more normal.
In many ways, the ICC is best viewed as an extradition pact with its own court.
Yeah, although his replacement would be highly unlikely to hand him over to the ICC either.
> They of course didn't just issue warrants for heads of state, although the same analysis probably applies to the other accused.
They did also issue warrants for some dead Hamas terrorists I guess.
> Ultimately i think it was an ideological stand - The ICC prosecutor wanted to say nobody is above the law, even if practically there are limits.
Could be, could also be he needed a distraction from his own misconduct investigation[0] or a bit of both. From what I've seen he rushed a very weak case but it's hard to say exactly why, could be for political reasons. Ultimately it probably just makes the ICC look weak since the warrants would be highly unlikely to be executed.
> Governments change, but treaty obligations stay.
When governments change treaty obligations tend to mostly matter to the degree they are enforce in practice.
> They could have withdrawn at any point (with 1 year notice) if they felt like it. they still havent.
Well...apparently they can't because the Taliban is not UN recognized.[1]
> The main point of withdrawing is rescinding the ICC's permission to use the states soverign ability to prosecute crimes as a basis of jurisdiction. Like yeah, there is also the cooperating in apregending fugitives bit as well, but that was always mostly on the honor system.
I mean, the apprehending fugitives part is kind of important, since that's the enforcement mechanism. Clearly the honor system doesn't seem to be working all that well.
> In most cases the situation is more that the accused has either fled or otherwise not present in the territory, which is pretty normal for courts.
I guess that has happened a bit in Africa, with how dysfunctional the courts there can be I can see cases where something like the ICC would make sense. On the other hand most of the middle east never became member states so it's rather useless there.
> Like with ukraine, i'm sure ukraine would have no problem prosecuting putin if he presented himself to ukraine. The issue is he is at large outside of the territory.
Well they would probably do that themselves rather than hand him over to the ICC. From my understanding ICC is generally only supposed to step in if local courts fail to act.
> In many ways, the ICC is best viewed as an extradition pact with its own court.
Which I guess is the main problem, the enforcement mechanism is kind of terrible, paired with the ICC seemingly deliberately trying pretty hard to stretch their jurisdiction makes them look like they are just playing political games a lot of the time.
The court probably shouldn't be making threats of arrest it can't carry through on. Similar to how Trump was making threats against Iran that he clearly wasn't willing to carry out made him look weak when they called his bluff.
[0] https://news.un.org/en/story/2026/07/1168025
[1] https://www.ejiltalk.org/unrecognized-governments-and-the-ic...
True, they could ignore the ICC, but they shouldn't go around sanctioning and punishing and threatening its judges.
Point being, I don't really think that "the US considers" carries a whole lot of weight these days.
How fun.
Hence, if anyone commits a crime in another country, they fall under the jurisdiction of that country. So while the US doesn't have to recognize the ICC, listen to it, or follow its verdicts, other countries are free to do so.
But now the US is threatening the judges of the ICC, which is hypocritical to say the least. It's more of a mafia thing, really. Not surprising, given Trump's background.
i feel like this misrepresents what the ICC has found. They found there was enough plausible cause to issue a warrant. That means they think that a trial should take place to figure out what is going on. It does not mean they think anyone is guilty. Lots of people subject to warrants end up being found innocent. Its step 1 of the process not the entire process.
And to further clarify, if your implication is that its similar to accusations of genocide - the ICC has jurisdiction over genocide and did not publicly issue a warrant for that charge against any israeli national.
To be clear i find the us campaign disgusting.
And you don't know much about the ICC process and could not have observed it if you think warrant is step 1. It's like step 7. If you did not watch the process, you can still learn the ICC procedure from the rules of the court. It's all freely available on their website.
This is untrue. ICC sometimes issues warrants for crimes that were in the past where it is unlikely the crime will continue.
>tamper with investigation (killing witnesses, etc
While this is something the ICC could issue a warrant for if there was reasonable cause, to date they have not publicly. So far the ICC has not accused Israel of this.
>And you don't know much about the ICC process and could not have observed it if you think warrant is step 1. It's like step 7. If you did not watch the process, you can still learn the ICC procedure from the rules of the court. It's all freely available on their website.
i was oversimplifying a bit, like yes, there is some process around letting complemtary take its course, but the warrant is the first step where the accused can actually do anything about it. my point was its very far away from a guilty verdict
In any case ICC warrants are not public. Only state parties know the content of the warrants. We don't know what's exactly in them. Only PR is public.
Anyway, it sounded like you're arguing that ICC warrant is something OTP asks for willy nilly on suspicion of a crime. But there is a long prior process where even opening the investigation has to be approved by the chamber or asked for by a state party. Then there's investigation, which in this case was likely quite extensive and helped by third parties, given that just Pillay's UN commission of inquiry alone provided ~7000 pieces of verified evidence and that's just scratching the surface, given that several state parties refered the situation in Palestine to the court, including Palestine itself, court does its own outreach to victims, and I know several projects that periodically sent/d tons of data collected from social media where Israeli state itself publicly posted its massacres of hundreds of civilians per strike early on.
https://www.aljazeera.com/video/newsfeed/2024/6/19/never-see...
I don't think its willy nilly. The office of the prosecutor did significant investigation to get to this point. Its just far away from a guilty verdict.
Even at the pretrial stage the court rejected some of the charges proposed by the prosecutor. The prosecutor asked for a charge of extermination, but the pre trial chamber found there wasn't evidence of the requirements being met. Its entirely plausible at an actual trial some of the other charges might be rejected.
From what i understand the conviction rate of the ICC is fairly low (if you include people who had warrants/summons but had case dropped before it went to trial as while as people acquited). Which isn't a bad thing, it means it is a fair court.
> Pillay's UN commission of inquiry alone provided ~7000 pieces of verified evidence
Justice isn't a numbers game. The quality not the quantity rules the day (not necessarily saying the evidence isn't quality - i havent seen it, just that the number of items is irrelavent)
> several state parties refered the situation in Palestine to the court,
state party referrals tend to be a joke. People refer things to the court for all sorts of political grandstanding reasons. The prosecutor is the person that matters when bringing a case.
Ultimately, part of the reason to have trials is so the accused can present evidence in their defense. Its an important part of determining a just verdict.
It’s the same rules you apply yourself, right?
And in that case, so much for "western ideals", if it's purely "America first, no ideals".
Your government also routinely ignores its own laws and judgements.
Hypocrisy at all the levels, and lying to try to still have the moral high ground.
There are actually people who spend their lives working for peace, and die in the effort. And then there are people like Henry Kissinger. They share the same prize.
More recently, the prizes are even more obviously politicized(1), so when the west is trying to overthrow Iran, it gives the prize to western-backed dissidents fighting for "women's rights" in Iran - the nation that has female airline pilots and university professors, but not to the scores of dissidents executed by Saudi Arabia, where women only recently got the right to drive. None of those murdered by Saudi Arabia, even if they died arguing for women's rights, will ever qualify for the Nobel Peace price. Not while Iran still needs to be overthrown.
1. See https://www.eureporter.co/nobel-peace-prize/2025/10/27/when-... for a survey of recent winners and what political agenda was pushed with each award.
These people would not be eligible for the Nobel Peace Prize, because its rules disallow deceased candidates.
If they cut up the journalist Jamal Khashoggi with a bone saw on foreign soil and get away with it, why would they change?
Trump is like the ultimate tool. And he is getting richer by the second.
Why is that money not given to The People?
Hence "Israeli Bubble", sheltered from the reality of their (government/army) actions, convinced to be the most moral army in the world.
> Reality is subjective to ones view.
Maybe your subjective reality, that's your thoughts and feelings. But there is an objective reality, like tens of thousands of children killed, the use of a starvation campaign in Gaza, all of Gaza City being turned to rubble which you can see for yourself on google maps satellite view, and many more such war crimes that have been factually proven.
Secondly did you ever watch the aftermath of the U.S dropping atomic bombs on Japan? How many children were killed? How many innocent people suffered? Thats the "reality" of war.
If you want to claim to be more civilized than Hamas and their cheerleaders, not being angry when "your side" doesn't take all effort to kill civilians is not how to do it.
Some in Palestine cheered when 7 October happened. Some cheered when 9/11 happened. If you ask them "how can you, those innocents died for no reason" and they replied "That's the 'reality' of war", how would you feel?
And if you consider them uncivilized barbarics for not caring, how do you view yourself? Ah yeah of course you're different, you're on the "right side", and for you "it's fine" (or "it's reality of war") when the "wrong" innocents die...
Nothing I said is about whats wrong or right. I simply pointed out historical facts. The same way the original comment I replied to.
Innocent people everyday are victims in a system they have absolutely no control over. Especially in cases of war and international affairs. None of these statements reflect any of my personal feelings or passing a judgement on any grouping of people.
Of the original 5 Nobel prize categories, 2 were always not about science.
I'm a lifelong scientist but it should be obvious that the Peace Prize is supposed to be bigger than science.
for comparison, i knew nothing about margaret hamilton or bill draper before reading their obituaries on HN this month. it literally took a few sentences to understand what legends they were .. not just in their respective domains, but in terms of their broader impact on humanity ..
with this navi lady, i've scrolled through two pages of text and still don't have a clear picture of what she actually DID to deserve whatever greatness the Nobel seems to bestow upon her.
i mean, if you can't even explain to a layman, in plain english, what someone actually DID to earn a prize of this stature .. without resorting to a laundry list of causes and buzzwords ... then what exactly are we rewarding here ? Her kindness ? Decency ? Morality ? wtf
ps: im not a software guy
My opinion is that yes, while international law rarely leads to punitive justice as many would like to see it executed, bad actors attacking these legal institutions demonstrate their importance in the court of public opinion and legitimacy.
Hope that gave you some Gyan, Mr. Chawdhary. Please remember that it's a big world out there and human endeavor has many paths to take beyond just science or what one person can understand by skimming an announcement.
Just rename the award to whatever - being outstanding human, standing up for human rights or whatever.
If Putin decides to freeze or stop the war in Ukraine tomorrow he will contribute more to world peace objectively than last 10 of the winners combined. Should we give him award too?
Though South Africa is, since 1994, a peaceful neighbour that has worked steadfastly to end and prevent wars on the African continent. Unlike the situation during Apartheid.
Anyway, the NPP is one of the things that tries to push humanity on a broad scale in a better direction, and I'm grateful for that. It is important to at least speak out about injustice, and to celebrate those who do so, otherwise those injustices are never going to be fixed (I'm not even talking about punishing, although that should be done).
And luckily we have journalism prizes as well, often for people showing the ugly reality.
Guys,there is no vast tunnel infrastructure operated by hamas so we must close our mind to the possibility that hamas is the evil guy compared to idf /s
You can find details from other sources as well.[0][1][2][3][4][5][6] She quite often runs cover for antisemitism.
[0] https://www.newsweek.com/new-low-antisemitism-un-opinion-172...
[1] https://apnews.com/article/middle-east-israel-geneva-race-an...
[2] https://www.theaustralian.com.au/world%2Fambassador-decries-...
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/apr/20/un-race-confer...
[4] https://www.reuters.com/article/world/eu-threatens-to-boycot...
[5] https://www.france24.com/en/20090419-growing-western-boycott...
[6] https://www.reuters.com/article/world/us-politics/australia-...
Regardless of how you feel about this woman - and even what the actual facts are - why would you use a Pro Israel lobby group as source for a topic like this? That's just bizarre.
Either you don't understand how to judge sources, or you are knowingly acting in bad faith. That makes your view completely irrelevant. Good job.
Being pro-Israel doesn't make their claims inaccurate and I did also link to other sources as well.[0] The main reason I linked to UN Watch was that they have a reasonably readable and compact aggregate of Navi Pillay's record on issues around antisemitism and bias. Mainstream news outlets have obviously reported on Navi Pillay as well but they typically only report on individual events as they happen.
> Either you don't understand how to judge sources, or you are knowingly acting in bad faith. That makes your view completely irrelevant. Good job.
I usually try to judge sources primarily based on whether or not they have a history of providing factually accurate information. Do you think UN Watch is putting out inaccurate information here?
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50027989
Why? From my understanding he was given the award for his part in negotiating what ultimately became the Camp David Accords, which have held to this day.
> Itzhak Rabin and Shimon Perez
At least they were negotiating for peace in good faith, unlike Arafat[0].
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/may/23/israel3
If you'd please stop doing this and instead review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use HN as intended, we'd appreciate it.
It makes people uncomfortable, but maybe someone who reduces net suffering despite being responsible for some suffering is doing more than normal people who do no harm, but do no good?