I'm wondering if this includes regulatory agencies which in the US operate under the executive

I would guess it's included but the wording (act, resolution) is very "legislative" coded

It's not. However from the speech it sounds like the commission is ready to put forward their proposal soon-ish

After they do so the actual legislative process is going to start where the draft has to go through Parliament and the Council to become law

The legislative process is going to take time which is where the 2027 date in eu-inc.org comes from

I don't know if there will be legal or political issues around this that would delay adoption though

If the law is constitutional it can't be thrown out by a judge in common law and if it's not it can be declared so in civil law

The difference between the two is more about what happens in the absence of a law

The objective of the ICC is not to stop wars

The objective of the ICC is to provide a framework to enable prosecuting and punishing the people ordering particularly egregious acts in a way that is more consistent with liberal rule of law principles than post-hoc tribunals like after WW2 and that is more accessible to fragile / new countries due to having the legal infrastructure set up and at least partially legitimized by it being an international body

The fact that Putin (for example) might at some point get extradited / captured, prosecuted and jailed for whatever crimes he gets found guilty of is a moral good in and of itself

If this being done at the ICC rather than in an Ukrainian or Russian (in an hypothetical regime after Putin's) helps others accept the verdict as more based on fact than politics then that's why the ICC exists as an entity

If this makes someone down the line think twice about ordering war crimes then that's an added benefit but it's not the point

The ICC is an international court but it administers trials (mostly) local to the members' jurisdiction so this point is moot. A warrant from the ICC doesn't ask the member states to go to war and hunt the target, it asks them to arrest them if the target is within their jurisdiction

The fact that the ICC warrant was unlikely to lead to Hamas' leaders arrest in the short term is not particularly meaningful

The "mostly" qualifier is because IIRC there are some provisions for truly extraterritorial prosecutions in the Rome treaty but I don't know that they've ever been actually used

Completely immune is overstating it, and the power to initiate legislation is not that meaningful given that the EC initiates what the council tells it to initiate and can't actually turn it into law without parliament and council

And in a democracy if you don't know how your own laws are made the fault is always yours as a voter

The "proposal" was made something like 3 years ago, the killing never happened and the passing, if it passes, will happen in at least one year from now because this will definitely take a long time to get through parliament and even longer to get through the trilogue.

The process is many things but quick it is not

It's currently held by Denmark so it's the Danish delegation that's mostly doing the brokering etc for this semester

What's a bit of truth in the face of that

Even ignoring that one of these cases involves death and destruction and the other doesn't

If power goes out really bad, there's some kind of major weather event in some part of the country etc 3 days is a reasonable time frame for emergency measures to be put in place

Not really, both things need to be done by a law. So it's the same signal and complexity as just rejecting the law when it's proposed

And the second option at least does away with the pretension of permanence people like to use as an excuse to wash their hands of interest in politics

This feels like just a reflexive regurgitation of the distinction between positive and negative rights that has no relevance to the discussion at all

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20240419IP...

https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-...

It matters because if it's that important to you then you have a sovereign right to leave the EU and do away with all the rules you don't want

Staying inside of it and accepting primacy of EU law when decisions are lawfully taken following the process you've agreed to of your own country's free will is a choice

Human rights are famously almost impossible to clearly define because they're an entirely abstract category relying very much on cultural consensus for their practical definition

> No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation. > Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

> Is this definition problematic?

Yes, very much so. By qualifying that the interference must not be unlawful it essentially makes any interference by law (like what was proposed here in the first place) fine

> privacy, family, home or correspondence

This is very restrictive, for instance there's nothing in it about online storage or your laptop / phone since they're neither your home, family or correspondence

> unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation

This manages to be so unclear that if applied strictly it'd ban any criticism of a politician or anyone else as long as you can construe it as "attacking their reputation"