Though the United States talks about solidifying international organizations, for some reason, it is not currently part of the International Criminal Court (ICC). This position seems a bit antithetical to our goal of strengthening the international community.
The ICC, which was formed in 2002 following the ratification of the Rome Statute, tries individuals responsible for massive atrocities, such as war crimes, genocide, crimes of aggression and crimes against humanity. Currently, 106 countries are part of the ICC, including many American allies, like the United Kingdom and Australia.
The Court has a fairly simple structure. It is made up of the president, who is responsible for the overall administration of the Court, the judicial divisions, which actually preside over trials, and the prosecutor, who conducts investigations and presents his findings to the Court. The Assembly of State Parties, which is made up of all signatories of the Rome Statute, oversees the ICC and ensures it is not acting improperly.
The Court’s purpose is pretty noble; I really can’t think of anything better than bringing mass murderers and other detestable criminals to justice. So why isn’t the U.S. a part of this admirable organization with such worthy goals?
One of the main arguments the Bush administration uses to justify our lack of involvement in the ICC is the perceived loss of sovereignty that might result. The U.S. has a history of abstaining from organizations that supposedly decrease our power (remember the League of Nations?). However, there’s really no reason to fear a loss of sovereignty; after all, the U.S. is part of many multinational organizations, and it hasn’t lost a noticeable amount of power. If anything, our membership in some organizations, such as NATO, has actually strengthened our relative power and has allowed us to influence many important decisions concerning the international community.
Another concern, which seems more relevant given the war in Iraq and our treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, is that Americans might become subject to the ICC’s jurisdiction. There is very little chance such a situation would ever occur. To be tried by the ICC, an individual must commit a crime that is very widespread in nature; it can’t be a random, isolated event. In fact, the ICC has only investigated four crimes up to this point, one being the genocide in Darfur.
Given our values, it’s highly unlikely an American citizen would ever be responsible for a horrible crime like genocide. Plus, the ICC must defer to a state’s proceedings unless it feels the proceedings were lacking or biased. Since the U.S. has one of the most respected legal systems in the world, the chance the ICC would find its proceedings insufficient is very slim.
These and other concerns have inspired the current administration to subvert the ICC. The United States makes bilateral treaties with other countries, called Article 98 agreements, which ensure the country will not refer an American citizen to the ICC. However, many members of the European Union have refused to sign Article 98 agreements because they strongly believe in the ICC’s purpose and do not wish to undermine its power.
The United States’ position concerning the ICC is illogical. Instead of undermining the ICC, the U.S. should support its efforts by becoming a signatory of the Rome Statute. With our membership in the ICC, the U.S. can heavily influence the rules and proceedings of the Court and show its dedication to internationalism.
