What a way to spark off the New Year not only with a nice piece on the International Criminal Court, but a nice piece about the ICC and the presidential candidates! And all this the day before the Iowa caucus. Was I a good boy last year, or what?
So, it seems the San Francisco Chronicle petitioned the presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle about their perceptions of U.S. membership into the court. Some background; Bush has been largely opposed to the ICC, citing concerns over sovereignty and the murky murky waters of bilateral arrangements. There is the one glaring exception with the referral of the Sudanese case to the ICC by the U.N. Security Council, but that was more of a U.N. measure and less so an ICC one, so I’ll give W a “by” on that one.
Sens. McCain, Clinton and Obama took the soft “wait and see” approach, saying they would embrace the court if there were more provisions protection U.S. personnel. But, things get sticky when we consider the “Hague Invasion Act” that allows military intervention to free would-be U.S. prisoners from the Hague. In that one, the hawks Clinton and McCain jumped on board (military invasion good) and so did Mr. Hair Cut himself, John Edwards, but Biden, Kucinich and Dodd opposed the measure, to no great surprise.
Now, some see this as something of a sign of the times. Is the U.S. going down the multi-lateral route that would suggest the once High And Mighty United States is in the same league with, god forbid, the French? Or do we all jump on the Ron Paul magic carpet ride with this little gem; “America must either remain a constitutional republic or submit to international law because it cannot do both.” (the Supreme Court ruled in the Paquete Habana case that “international law is part of our law” , good job DOCTOR Paul. Heidi Klum would “out” you for that, ya know!)
It seems this is one of those contentious issues in international law. Yes, certainly there should be an independent forum to examine atrocities, but can we give it jurisdiction over the affairs of sovereign states? No, and I don't think the ICC does that. One of the tenets of the court is that it requires either state permission or some other mandate to intervene in the affairs of state, as in the Sudanese case. I think the U.S. is afraid that incidents such as Abu Ghraib et al will land the Marines and Co. in prison as show-trials at the international court. With the albeit jaded trials at Camp Pendleton and so on, it seems the candidates should take a page out of the Clinton (and I mean Bill) playbook and play nice with the international community to re-build the American legacy that ol’ W seems to have forgotten.
