Miscellaneous desk
< February 7	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 9 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 8

Trump's sanctions on the ICC

While I understand US sanctions against some countries, I wonder is it even legal to sanction International Criminal Court and enforce such sanctioning orders? What framework in the US formally allows to sanction the global institutions of such magnitude? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The executive order signed by Trump cites the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, as the legal basis of his authority.^[1] An appeal to the National Emergencies Act requires that the President declares a national emergency with respect to the "unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States" posed by actions of the ICC targeting America and Israel. (As far as I'm aware, the court has only targeted Israeli individuals.) In the executive order, the President has actually declared such a national emergency. Whether the actions of the ICC truly pose an unusual and extraordinary threat cannot be objectively decided. Although there is at least an effort to create the appearance of legality, something tells me that legality is not a prime consideration of this administration. The Trump administration is perhaps not that exceptional in this respect; countless wars have been initiated by presidential order,^[2] circumventing the War Powers Clause simply by not calling the war a "war". The US is also not exceptional in this respect; many other countries have used a fancy name like "special police action" for waging war on foreign soil.

Apart from legality within the legal framework of the US, there is also the question of the legality of sanctions in the framework of international law, for which I refer to this article. ‑‑Lambiam 20:06, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the legality of this (and other) actions by the US against the ICC (whether in the context of US law or internationally), and specifically regarding some very important legal considerations which you and everyone else (including Trump himself) have missed, see below. 2601:646:8082:BA0:873:4E54:584:2983 (talk) 03:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Trump taking any kind of action against anything is not guaranteed to stand up in the US court system. As to the ICC, one thing he could try to do is stop any US funding of that court. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still, I hope the Wikimedia Foundation has a plan in place for the contingency that all Wikimedia operations (including the servers) in the US are ~~seized~~ ceased, in addition to relying on the US court system. ‑‑Lambiam 07:56, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Might have to resort to smoke signals. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:26, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We would have to persuade the native Americans to teach them to the immigrants first. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:17, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Somber thanks. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 10:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The United States has never recognized the ICC and does not fund the ICC. So, how would it be a threat to stop funding that does not exist? Further, how is a santion to refuse entry to the United States to an organization that has never been recognized as an authority by the United States suddenly a threat to Wikipedia? This is supposed to be an intelligent reference desk, not a Facebook echo chamber. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no Facebook account and am not aware of discussions there, but cannot shake off the feeling that recent developments have some obvious precedents, like the methods used by the Orbán administration, much of which aimed to achieve Gleichschaltung. ‑‑Lambiam 21:53, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer was a good attempt to answer the question. That wasn't the issue. After your answer, there is a claim that Trump will block US funding for the ICC, but the US does not and never has funded the ICC. So, would the author have the guts to step up and correct the answer? Of course not. Then, there is the claim that refusing to allow the ICC to arrest the Prime Minister of Israel on U.S. soil is somehow going to shut down Wikipedia. That makes no sense. Would that author be willing to correct that answer? Of course not. Then, when called out on such blatant nonsense, there is a rush to Godwin's law. I find it very disappointing. Perhaps we need to change the header on the Reference Desk. We do not make predictions except we will answer every question, regardless of the topic, with the claim that it will somehow result in Trump shutting down Wikipedia because Hitler. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 11:35, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The threat of denying entry to family members of people with a connection to an ICC court case – even if only in the capacity of being heard as a witness – can have a chilling effect. Imagine your child is doing their PhD at Stanford, or your spouse regularly gives professional presentations at international conferences, many of which are held on US soil. You might think twice before testifying.

As to the lack of love of the Trusk/Mump administration for Wikipedia, this article is of some interest. What is hardly conceivable today may be the reality of tomorrow. ‑‑Lambiam 18:27, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is about the ICC and not about any (hypothetical) future actions against Wikipedia, is it not??? Then how would this second part even be relevant here??? 2601:646:8082:BA0:873:4E54:584:2983 (talk) 03:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to work on your reading comprehension. No one said that Trump was going to block US funding for the ICC. Baseball Bugs said "As to the ICC, one thing he could try to do is stop any US funding of that court." Such a statement does not imply that such funding exists and does not make the prediction that Trump will stop said funding. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:44, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[un-indent] I'm surprised that so far, no one (not even President Trump himself) has mentioned the most obvious legal basis for this authority -- the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (which gives the President of the United States unlimited authority to take any action he sees fit against any group which is linked in any way whatsoever to 9/11) in conjunction with the National Security Strategy of the United States from 9/17/2001 (which extends the applicability of the former to any person or entity that has aided any such terrorists in any way whatsoever) and the Holy Land Foundation trial documents (which, by proving that Hamas is linked to Al-Qaida via the Muslim Brotherhood terrorist network, specifically extend the applicability of the AUMF to Hamas via the NSS, and thence (by the fact that the ICC had openly aided Hamas by retaliating against Israeli officials for the actions taken by them in fighting Hamas) also to the ICC via the same mechanism! (In fact, not only does this make all of Trump's actions against the ICC legal, but technically per these documents he would have been within his rights to order the armed forces, or say the CIA, to whack the judges who had targeted the Israeli officials in question -- which, unfortunately, he has chosen not to do!) As for any question of international law, it does not apply in this case -- the AUMF does not allow international law to limit its scope, and furthermore, anyone who would attempt to apply international law to limit the AUMF would by that very action automatically fall afoul of the NSS, and thereby the AUMF would allow the President to take action against them as well! 2601:646:8082:BA0:873:4E54:584:2983 (talk) 03:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]