Plus Ultra | International criminal law versus military criminal law | July 20, 2026

Ever heard of the “Hague Invasion Act” or the “Hague Invasion Clause”? According to an American newspaper of 2001, that was how the European leaders named the American Servicemembers’ Protection Act because of their concerns about its consequences.

Section 2008 vests the president with authority to use all means necessary to free U.S. servicemembers and other covered persons detained or imprisoned by or on behalf of the International Criminal Court (“ICC”). The statute prohibits cooperating (2004) and sharing classified national security and law enforcement information with the ICC (2006).

According to an American reporter, a Dutch film or theater performance was shown in May 2026 about the consequences of the Act. It’s unclear whether it’s a comedy or satire, in part because of its title and the comparisons it makes of the size of both country’s population, army, and arms, e.g. about 20 fighter jets versus about 2500 in the U.S. which are publicly available numbers, nothing is said about non-public numbers. That could be interesting as a concept of mental preparation of a target audience through “entertainment” because what a peculiar concurrence of time and theme. Pure coincidence, obviously.

Just about as much coincidence as the fiction series Jack Ryan, the American intelligence hero who’s going to “save” Venezuela. And about as much coincidence as the computer games that look real, such as Call of Duty: Ghosts and Mercenaries 2: World in Flames, in which American war heroes basically blow up Venezuela. That way, when the children reach the age to join the army, they were already prepared mentally for the real military action in 2026. It all looks so real, it’s hard to tell fiction from reality and whether the game is simulating reality or reality is following the game’s script. Whatever, it’s just a movie or a game, right? Right. Fortunately, it’s all just coincidence.

What’s not a coincidence is when the Dutch media starts to praise something, because you immediately know that it’s marketing for an investment of the Netherland’s (de facto) leaders. When seeing that type of marketing just follow the money, because it will lead to the investor. When you follow the money behind the ICC, you’ll understand exactly why the Dutch media is suddenly praising it so lavishly, extoling the “authority” allegedly embodying “righteousness”, “impartiality” and “justice”, and such like. You won’t ever hear the Dutch media say that in that manner about the human rights tribunals in Africa or the America’s.

The question is whether it is truly about justice or whether the international legal order and international court the West-European countries talk about a more of a system to prevent that they’ll suffer what they did to others. Here’s a photography, for instance, of one of the many African fathers who struck by utter disbelief, helplessness, and grief about the irreversibility is looking at his five-year old daughter’s cut-off hand and foot, because he allegedly had not delivered enough rubber to a European king. Here’s the example of the Taíno, just to name one of people who the Spanish claimed to have exterminated completely. Initially, the colonial justification was that these were not humans, so coincidentally their lands were res nullius according to the lawyers. Later, after extensive theological debates—and after they did the same to many other peoples—they admitted they were people but “savages.” After that (and currently still) the justification is that though they’re people they allegedly don’t know how to take care of their commodities and riches, so those have to be taken from them or decisions have to be made for them.

In colonial times, then, going around the world taking commodities and land, using the most inhumane and cruel means was acceptable. However, when the declarations of independence brought that era to an end, then the same countries obviously need rules to prevent that they fall victim to those same means. How convenient, right? In the context the ICC and international law that’s undoubtedly not called “impunity” as there surely must be some justification.

Hence when a former colony, America for example, doesn’t recognize that “authority” it’s not hard from a human perspective for others that were in the same colonial situation to identify and understand it both as a matter of feeling and reasoning. That explains the many pejorative nicknames, such as “globocourt”, a rogue, jurisdiction usurping court, “International Kangaroo Court”, an illegitimate court that disregards and distorts principles of law and justice, and “International Colonial Court” that almost exclusively prosecutes Africans, who seem to be easier to prosecute. Remove the leader, enjoy free commodities. It’s undoubtedly all coincidence. These are obviously not topics discussed in Dutch books about law or history.

Selective prosecution is another criticism. Why prosecute virtually only Africans? More case specific: in 2020 the ICC authorized investigation of potential U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan but a year later it was suddenly “deprioritized.”

To the “authority” all of this is not acceptable. For the West-European countries that invested in that system and accompanying court, this is a threat to their investment. The “2026 Budget Outlays: Enhanced International Legal Order” of the Ministry of Finance shows a snapshot of the Netherlands’ investment.

Additionally, under the Headquarters Agreement between the ICC and the host State, as its host State the Netherlands has special obligations to ensure the Court is able to function with the least possible impediment. The country contributes financially to organizations promoting the ICC while organizing events at international conferences about the ICC and its field of work. According to this List of Financial Obligations Towards International Organizations, the Netherlands “(external) security for defendants, witnesses, and victims” and rent exemption of 10 years.

In 2007, the Netherlands’s projected costs for temporary shelter of the ICC totaled about EUR 64 million. The Netherlands ultimately ended up paying the ICC’s rental fees for over 10 years. The country offered a plot of land for permanent shelter and a EUR 200 million loan with very favorable terms for construction costs. The new luxury building, also called “mega sculpture”, “totals 587,709 ft² in, 775,001 ft² in landscape, 1,200 work places”. Total costs: about EUR 204 million.

Now it’s clear that the Netherlands has much to lose if its investment were to become a military and political target. So that means they’ll have to try to reach an agreement sycophantically, because anti-sanctions laws (such as the European Union’s (“E.U.”) Regulation 2271/96) are basically futile, just ask Venezuela which tried to protect itself against E.U. sanctions, which the E.U. has refused to lift even after the earthquakes of 2026. The E.U. law to combat economic coercion (Regulation 2023/2675) is bureaucratic, slow, and has never been used before.

However, persuading them to reach an agreement may be hard, due to the Europe’s credibility problem with concepts like human rights, fundamental freedom of the press, freedom of expression, privacy, property rights, and justice etc. See e.g. the above issues involving the ICC or the Netherlands’s seizure of a semiconductor manufacturer Nexperia. When Dutch books on law and history say that law and politics are separate, is that true? You tell us.

On July 2, 2026, the E.U. Court of Justice held that criminal prosecution of individuals or companies for (re)sending RT videos in the E.U. — even if their contents are true — is lawful. This comes after a playwright/writer in Germany was convicted on September 30, 2024 — and is still being prosecuted — for his non-extremist expressions. This comes from the same ones that criticize, patronize, recriminate, and judge the world, especially the global south, about totalitarian censorship, human rights, and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of expression and freedom of the press.

In 2026, when the E.U. was distracted with sports, right before the holidays, after 5 failed attempts the European Parliament used a controversial voting trick to push through legislation that gives full access to all private communication of E.U. citizens without requiring prior any suspicion or a court warrant. The justification (a crime) is irrelevant, because no suspicion is even required. This comes from the same ones who criticize, patronize, recriminate, and judge other countries about human rights and fundamental freedoms, such as privacy instead of constant and unlimited mass surveillance and honest voting procedures and even visit other countries to, according to their own words, check and see to it that voting is conducted honestly.

Incidentally, which technology companies are able to process and use such masses of mass surveillance data? Those of Liechtenstein, the Netherlands or Andorra perhaps? And why are U.S. companies allowed to access that data but not the data held by Solvinity? You tell us.

What’s interesting from a translation perspective is that the Dutch media doesn’t translate nor report on these European developments nor the most important ones in America. Why would the Dutch media be so quite about these European developments? You tell us.

Thank you very much for visiting. Thank you for your donations, for believing in Plus Ultra and for sharing this with anyone who may find this useful. Because of you, we can continue to help the community at large with free multilingual support and in language, law and tourism and create valuable related content, such as articles and videos. Again, we appreciate your support and hope to see you soon again.

© Plus Ultra Publishing & Legal Translations. All rights reserved.