U.S. Opposition to the International Criminal Court
These offenses are genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Currently there are 100 countries that have ratified or acceded to the ICC statute. In addition there are 41 other states which have signed but not ratified the treaty. However, there are many countries that refuse to participate in the International Criminal Court due to disagreement with its policies. The United States is the primary country that is against the International Criminal Court.
The largest disagreement has to do with the source and the nature of the court’s jurisdiction. Some countries believe there is not much legal supervision of the court’s system and the court’s verdicts could become subject to political motives. Supporters argue against this by saying that the ICC has a system of checks and balances that would prevent this from happening. They also argue that the countries which object to the ICC are the ones that frequently carry out genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.
The United States signed but did not ratify the treaty under the Clinton administration. But after George W Bush became president in 2000, the United States withdrew its support of the ICC. The US has stated that it does not intend to ratify the treaty so as a result it is not legally bound by it. The US fears that American soldiers and political leaders may be subject to frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions. It has been argued that many countries in the world have an anti-American agenda and they may enjoy frequently charging American politicians or military officials with war crimes charges just to cause embarrassment and bad publicity.
Many in the US who believe that the US has a history of supporting human rights also believe that the US is more qualified to move against war criminals than many of the members of the ICC. When the ICC treaty was ratified in 2002, the US began to take a number of actions to exempt US nationals from the Court’s authority. Congress passed the American Servicemember’s Protection Act in 2002 shortly after the ICC treaty was ratified. The ASPA included a number of provisions including prohibitions on US military providing military aid to countries which had ratified the ICC treaty. There were many exceptions to this ban including countries that entered into an agreement with the US not to hand over US nationals to the ICC. The ASPA also contained a provision that barred US cooperation with the ICC and allowed the President to authorize military force to free any US military personnel being held by the court.
The United States threatened to use it’s Security Council veto to block renewal of several UN peacekeeping operation mandates unless the Security Council agreed to permanently exempt US officials from the ICC’s jurisdiction. The US wanted to prevent people on UN missions from being tried by any country except their own. This was rejected by other members so the US then sought to make use of a provision of the Rome Statute which permits the Security Council to request the ICC to not employ its jurisdiction over a certain matter for up to one year at a time. The United States wanted this request to be renewed automatically every year. A compromise was negotiated by the British in which the US would be granted its request but only for a year and new vote would be required every July.
The US has attempted to pressure other countries into signing bilateral agreements with it by holding it as a condition of receiving military and economic aid . Article 98 of the Roman Statute states that a country doesn’t need to hand over a foreign national to the Court if it is not allowed from doing so by an agreement with the national’s country. The US has used this measure to excuse its nationals from the ICC. The US has negotiated 100 article 98 agreements. Many groups including Amnesty International have claimed that the agreements the US is negotiating are invalid under article 98.
Critics of these US policies to contain the ICC claim that the main goal of the US is to be above international law. The US has cut aid and development funding for many poor countries in retaliation for cooperating with the ICC. Countries who have lost aid include Brazil, Costa Rica, Peru, Venezuela, and Ecuador in addition to several other African and Latin American countries.
Some in the US are opposed to the idea of a permanent international legal institution like the ICC. These people believe that the ICC may become a precursor to an evil future global government that would control everything. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has rebuffed these claims by stating that the International Criminal Court was created for the purpose of preventing mass murder and punishing those who would commit such crimes against humanity.
The ICC contains a few safeguards which would help prevent uncalled-for charges against the US or any other country which is against the ICC. The procedures for selecting judges and prosecutors require exceptional qualifications. There is also a procedure to remove any prosecutor if they participate in politically motivated investigations. The ICC prosecutor will be held responsible by a panel of judges who ensure that any investigation by the prosecutor is necessary. The court’s authority is limited to the most serious international crimes such as genocide and the act must be sanctioned by the country for the prosecution to proceed. The international court is not designed to replace an already efficient national justice system like the one in the United States.
The US insist that nobody should be tried without the permission of their national government. Critics have countered this position by pointing to the recent governments of Slobodan Milosevic and many other cruel dictators. The governments of these leaders would not consent to being prosecuted in the International Criminal Court. There needs to be an international governing body to control those who think they are above the law.
The United States is not the only country opposed to the International Criminal Court. The Israelis also have been against the ICC. Israel fears prosecution of Israelis settlers or government officials who support the policy of settlements in occupied Palestinian territory as war crimes. Israel did eventually sign the ICC treaty but sent a letter to the UN declaring that they had no intention on ratifying the treaty. The People’s Republic of China has refused to sign the treaty. China has also opposed other countries involved with the ICC, claiming that the Rome Statute is an attempt to get in the way of domestic affairs of other countries.
Despite all the opposition to the International Criminal Court, the Court is going strong with 100 members from the international community. US objections to the ICC have many supporters and many non-supporters. The International Criminal Court may not be perfect but it is a good start. There needs to be a international system to prosecute leaders like Saddam Hussein who think they are above the law and that that they can do whatever they want just because they are in charge of a country. Without an international court to keep watch there will be more incidents like the ones in Rwanda and the Congo. Despite opposition from a few countries, the ICC will continue to prosecute suspected war criminals like Slobodan Milosevic for the good of the international community.
