When countries like Russia, China, India, the United States, Israel, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey don't actually recognize the ICC's jurisdiction (being non-Parties to the Rome Statute or those who haven't ratified it), I think it's safe to say that the ICC's jurisdiction is far from "de facto international law."
Now go back and read what I was replying to. It wasn’t about the ICC’s jurisdiction...the person claimed there is no such thing as international law.
This is correct. Some people confuse the ICC with the IJC, which is recognized by every UN member state, and which also handles such things as territorial and maritime disputes:
While we are not a party to Rome, we do use the ICC as a tool when it suits us. For example, we use it as a tool to signal regime change is our aim in an armed conflict with another country. For example, Libya. Muammar Gaddafi was indicted (case closed upon his gruesome death). If you check the ICC site, you will see that Libyans indicted for crimes are members of the old Gadaffi regime, none from the “rebel” side (who committed documented widespread serious war crimes during the war and egregious human rights abuses afterward):
https://www.icc-cpi.int/cases?f%5B0%5D=situation_name_colloquial_cases%3A679
By designating Putin as as an indicted war criminal, we also signal there will be no peace negotiation. We do not sit down to negotiate with war criminals and point fingers at anyone who does. We are, in effect, taking a negotiated peace settlement off the table, at least so long as Putin is in power.
The hawks in DC believe that such indictments work to cause regime change from within the country targeted. We shall see whether they are correct in the case of Russia. I have my doubts. And, if they are correct, whether they are pleased with Putin’s replacement.
Biden stated at the very beginning that one of our main goals was regime change in Russia. This indictment adds teeth.