I honestly don’t know if you cannot see the difference between issuing a warrant to be enforced by sovereign nations (or not), and actively interfering on foreign soil, or you simply don’t want to, and to avoid having to agree with that distinction you’re making up random arguments. If you have the opinion that a country has the right to act in that way, simply say so.
The ICC has zero executive power and as such by definition cannot act violently. There is a clear difference between ICCs publications and a country‘s decision or refusal to enforce it, and the consequences if Visa were to refuse implementing the sanctions. You are not honestly proposing that they have a choice.
Just because you have the means of violence doesn’t mean it is right (beneficial) to apply them.
If I enter your home, and refuse to leave, feel free to extract me. Don’t try that in mine.
I think I made this distinction sufficiently clear by now.
> I honestly don’t know if you cannot see the difference between issuing a warrant to be enforced by sovereign nations (or not), and actively interfering on foreign soil, or you simply don’t want to, and to avoid having to agree with that distinction you’re making up random arguments.
I'm not saying there are no differences, but your apparent claim that "issuing a warrant to be enforced by sovereign nations (or not)" in the manner the ICC does is not itself a form of "actively interfering on foreign soil" just doesn't seem to be aligning with the reality of the situation.
> If you have the opinion that a country has the right to act in that way, simply say so.
I would agree these sort of sanctions are somewhat problematic in general, however given that the ICC has decided to issue actual arrest warrants backed by the power of a legally binding international treaty I think it's also hard to argue that the sanctions are much of an overreaction given the real threat to the interests of the US and allies they pose. IMO arrest warrants are a step above sanctions in terms of their potential threat to those being targeted.
> The ICC has zero executive power and as such by definition cannot act violently. There is a clear difference between ICCs publications and a country‘s decision or refusal to enforce it, and the consequences if Visa were to refuse implementing the sanctions. You are not honestly proposing that they have a choice.
The Rome Statute is a binding treaty for State Parties, many of these states appear to take a fairly strict interpretation in regards to their obligations to enforce an arrest warrant issued by the ICC in their own national laws/policies, this is in effect those states delegating the power of state violence to the ICC. Just because some states decide to violate a binding international treaty doesn't mean the ICC is entirely unable to exercise the delegated power of state violence. Likewise just because the ICC can only indirectly exercise the power of state violence doesn't mean it doesn't have that power at all.
> Just because you have the means of violence doesn’t mean it is right (beneficial) to apply them.
My argument is more that the ICC and the US are both in effect using the threat of state violence(arrest warrants/sanctions) as a way to advance their goals internationally.
The ICC has zero executive power and as such by definition cannot act violently. There is a clear difference between ICCs publications and a country‘s decision or refusal to enforce it, and the consequences if Visa were to refuse implementing the sanctions. You are not honestly proposing that they have a choice.
Just because you have the means of violence doesn’t mean it is right (beneficial) to apply them.
If I enter your home, and refuse to leave, feel free to extract me. Don’t try that in mine.
I think I made this distinction sufficiently clear by now.