NYC Mayor-Elect Makes Wild Vow, Says City Subject to International Law
It’s worse than you’d imagine. One of America’s most prominent cities appears ready to surrender its law enforcement apparatus to the whims of international tribunals. The willingness of certain politicians to subordinate U.S. law to overseas courts doesn’t just represent bad judgment. It amounts to a betrayal of their oath of office.
Brace yourself for this one…
Mamdani replied, “so I’ve said time and time again that I believe this is a city of international law. And being a city of international law means looking to uphold international law. And that means upholding the warrants from the International Criminal Court (ICC), whether they’re for Benjamin Netanyahu or Vladimir Putin. I think that that’s critically important to showcase our values.”
“And, unlike Donald Trump, I’m someone who looks to exist within the confines of the laws that we have. So I will look to exhaust every legal possibility, not to create my own laws.”
These words from New York City mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani aren’t just delusional grandstanding—they constitute a wholesale rejection of American sovereignty. Yup, he actually said this out loud. By declaring his intention to enforce International Criminal Court warrants, Mamdani essentially announces he’ll ignore U.S. law in favor of directives from an international body that the United States has explicitly refused to join.
Yet isn't the USA still a member of a slew of international organisations forming agreements of which some at least are intended to be written into each member nation's by-laws, without actually removing those nations' sovereignty or constitution?
I know she has turned her back on some of these organisations, apparently for purely parochial reasons; but no nation can exist in hermetic isolation.
So what is the real problem here?
A genuine dislike of co-operation with other countries around the world, or the political fear that the ICC has issued or might issue arrest warrants against Netanyahu and (separately) Putin, specifically?
Or just domestic, party-political opposition to one city's elected mayor?
@BigGuy2 Fair point! Though from outside I can see its exaggeration.
Essentially a member of one of the country's two political parties becomes elected in the normal way to be the mayor of one city within that country, and supporters of the other party despise him for it!
Looking beyond silly domestic political spats like mere mayoral elections, looking instead beyond the defensive moat of salty water surrounding the USA, the attitute towards the ICC implies the USA tacitly supports, or at least ignores, any breach of international law, however egregious, as long as it is not committed within the USA.
I can see the legal theory as a rather flimsy excuse. and no-one is accusing the USA of international crimes, or trying to arrest Americans. (Though her many enemies might like otherwise.)
I cannot understand the basic US opposition to trying to deal with criminals who break international laws though; and for historical reasons.
In the 1940s thousands of American soldiers, sailors and airmen fought, and many died, to rid Europe of Nazism and to halt Japan's imperial invasions. So have many more in all sorts of wars around the world since, some never really winnable by the USA. Unfortunately one outcome of WW2 was the USSR gaining her own ruthless empire; but there was also one positive outcome.
That positive result was agreements and institutions such as the International Criminal Court; and its need is as vital now as were the Nuremburg Trials of the leading Nazis.
Notably, when the Allies established those first international-crime concepts and court, some wanted the Nazis merely shot on sight; but Britain was one country that said, "NO. That would descend to their level. Try them in a properly-run, open Court of Law." And that is what happened. Most were found guilty, and those not hanged were imprisoned for many years, or life.
In peace too, despite recently withdrawing from a few for domestic ideology, the USA is a full member of many international groups and agreements: the UN, ISO, NATO (which it runs); those for scientific research, trade and transport, cultural endeavours, environmental protection etc.
So why would it oppose the ICC? Why would it not want to bring to civilised justice, those who comnmit or order the committing of, uncivilised acts against humanity?
I appreciate the fear behind it - rather as in Britain over the EU's aims - but the apparent US Constitutional argument seems illogical to me, for two reasons.
Firstly the ICC is not acting against the USA, but would likely welcome its support - the American Constitution allows the USA to help other countries.
Secondly the USA helped develop, and works within, all those other international legal frames without loss of independence.
So from an allied country the anti-ICC stance hints at trying to shelter particular individuals in lands far, far away, purely for US domestic political interests.
"No man is an island", wrote the English poet John Donne in 1624, in a poem. No, and nor is a nation an island beyond simple physical geography.
I’m someone who looks to exist within the confines of the laws that we have. So I will look to exhaust every legal possibility, not to create my own laws.
Mamdani
Mamdani essentially announces he’ll ignore U.S. law
@sunsporter1649 I understand the USA position over the ICC. I suggest that actually Mamdani will no more carry out these threats than Trump carries out half of what he says. The term 'grand standing' is probably very appropriate because, and you will know better than me, I can't see the New York mayor having any legal support for the actions he's talking about. What I DID see was a contradictory declaration that he would obey the law as it stands, so I think fears are groundlessly held.
@FreddieUK When Mamdani claims he wants to “exist within the confines of the laws that we have,” the irony is thick enough to cut with a knife. Here’s the kicker—the laws we have in America don’t recognize ICC authority. Not even a little bit. Every NYPD officer takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, not international tribunals that we never joined. By ordering them to enforce external warrants, Mamdani would be commanding them to violate their sworn duty.
This isn’t about supporting or opposing any particular world leader. It’s about the basic question of who makes law in America. The ICC’s warrant against Netanyahu, issued during Israel’s defensive war against Hamas terrorism, carries zero legal weight in the United States. Neither does their warrant against Putin. An American mayor has no authority—none whatsoever—to enforce these non-American directives, regardless of his personal opinions.
