I thought I was “morally bankrupt” for supporting rules without reason. Now I’m “morally bankrupt” for supporting rules because they attempt to prevent war crimes such as genocide?
No you are morally bankrupt for appealing to rules and supporting them when they are fundamentally flawed, and continuing to ignore those flaws or even attempting to defend them.
They can also be used to defend genocide and prevent the attacking of people who commit genocide.
And no. I think combatants are combatants who can be legally fired upon. If they break the rules by not clearly identifying themselves, they lose their right to be treated as POWs.
And lose the right to be treated as combatants and instead are to be treated as civilians according to the Geneva conventions.
So if you have a terrorist group operating out of a different country, you are only permitted to attack them when they are actually engaged in fighting. After they retreat back to safety, they are protected, and you would have to arrest them and try them in a court of law.
Bully for you. What does that have to do with the ICC or ICJ?
The ICC is based upon the IMT, which was established to pretend the prosecutions of German's was just, rather than just proceeding to summary execution, with those living victims of the IMT pardoned.
It has no ability to enforce its verdicts, except in the case of a defeat of a party with that party then being subject to it, or a party handing over someone they control.
They do not serve to stop genocide, war crimes, etc. They just act to try punish those they can after they have done that. And typically only on the party deemed "bad" while ignoring the war crimes of the side deemed "good", or just having those governments refuse to allow their people to be prosecuted. Look at the US response to accusations of crimes against humanity in Afghanistan.
They have even indicted Vladimir Putin, and look at what that is doing to the war between Ukraine and Russia - Absolutely nothing.
In effect, it only works for victor justice.
The ICJ is is even less useful, just offering adjudication which only works if the parties agree.
For everyone:
The colours allegedly represent shared interests, specifically in relation to the Islamic State.
e.g. the red between US, China and Russia represent a shared interest in "they are threatened in similar fashion by the expansionist Islamic extremism of Islamic State."
More here:
https://graphics.wsj.com/isis-strange-bedfellows/