(See related pages)
|
|
|
Introduction In July 1998, the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC) was enacted. After years of negotiations and countless drafts, the conference at Rome settled on the creation of a court that would have jurisdiction over the individuals, groups, or countries accused of committing the most heinous crimes. These crimes include genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression. The United States, particularly under the George W. Bush administration, has made its opposition to the treaty clear. In November 2001, Bush signed into law the Departments of Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, which contained an amendment prohibiting the use of funds for cooperation with the ICC or its Preparatory Commission. The House of Representative has also approved a bill that further bars U.S. participation in the ICC. But despite U.S. opposition, the ICC became a reality in April 2002, when the number of countries ratifying the treaty surpassed 60 (the minimum required for the ICC to take effect). As of July 2006, 139 countries have signed the treaty and 100 of those countries have ratified it. While U.S. ratification of the ICC treaty is not necessary for the court to function, the reality is that absence of a major world power, such as the United States, from the court will certainly hinder the court's operations and overall legitimacy and authority in global politics. U.S. ratification will therefore continue to be an important and controversial topic for many years to come, particularly as the U.S. prepares for a changing of the guard in 2008. No: The United States should not ratify the ICC. Those who are opposed to U.S. ratification of the ICC cite a number of reasons for their opposition. First, they contend that the ICC will not deter the commission of war crimes and genocide. The Nuremburg trials did not prevent the genocide in Rwanda or the former Yugoslavia, and there is no evidence that the ICC will, however well intentioned, have the authority needed to deter individuals and groups from committing such heinous crimes. Others point specifically to the "crime of aggression" and the implications of its vague definition and potential application. From this perspective, any intervention in a state for the protection of human rights of some or all its people might constitute a crime. For example, NATO could be prosecuted for its actions in the former Yugoslavia in the same way as Slobodan Milosevic was being prosecuted for the atrocities committed there until his death in 2006. Most proponents of this argument maintain that the complexities of today's world demand that justice and reconciliation be dealt with on a case-by-case basis as done by the various ad hoc tribunals. Lastly, many are concerned about American interests and the potential for U.S. soldiers, and more importantly U.S. leaders, to be targeted, perhaps unfairly, by the court's prosecutor. According to the treaty, any state has the power to refer an issue for investigation to the prosecutor, and the prosecutor has the power to commence an investigation at his or her discretion. There is no UN Security Council veto over the discretion of the prosecutor. The current U.S. government and many U.S. citizens believe that the loss of state sovereignty rights is too high a price to pay for ICC membership. Yes: The United States should ratify the ICC. The mere fact of the ICC's growth in the last few years reflects its importance and legitimacy in world politics, and many people argue that the United States is missing the boat when it comes to being involved in the evolution of this institution. That the ICC will fail to deter atrocities, when such an international institution has never before existed, is simply unknowable. Moreover, the ICC is not necessarily designed to be prophylactic; for the victims of these terrible crimes it is crucial that offenders are apprehended, tried, and punished. Retribution and protection of society are objectives not only for the domestic criminal justice system but also for the new international version. Accountability is key here. Many argue that the United States has nothing to fear when it comes to the ICC, despite significant U.S. military commitments all across the world. The ICC is only interested in prosecuting the most heinous of crimes, as defined by the treaty, and so long as the United States acts lawfully, Americans should not face prosecution. It is important to remember that other states with significant military commitments overseas, such as the United Kingdom and France, have ratified the Rome Statute without equivocation. Furthermore, the prosecutor of the court is not an unchecked entity, and there are many safeguards built into the treaty—thanks to U.S. participation in the talks early on. From this perspective, the ICC works in the national interest of the United States. It provides an opportunity for the country to reaffirm its leadership on the issue of international justice, a long-time goal of U.S. foreign policy. The ICC embodies deeply held American values, such as respect for human rights and the rule of law. The ICC also reaffirms the importance of international law, including those laws that protect Americans overseas. In the end, the ICC has the potential to contribute to a more stable and peaceful international order—a contribution undoubtedly in line with U.S. security interests. Both sides of the debate can agree on one thing: if the ICC works the way it was intended, it will have a profound impact on global politics. Opinions differ, however, on whether or not that impact will be positive or negative. To help you develop your viewpoint in this hot debate, check out the following Web sites for further information and important updates on the ICC. Updated list of countries that have signed and ratified the Rome Statute The Coalition for the International Criminal Court International Criminal Court Legal analysis on the U.S. decision not to ratify the ICC Analysis and critique of U.S. actions toward the ICC from Human Rights Watch |