The United States should not join the International Criminal Court (ICC), as it “lacks prudent safeguards against political manipulation, possesses sweeping authority without accountability … and violates national sovereignty” says the Heritage Foundation, a conservative public policy research institute.
The ICC was officially established in 2002 as a forum to prosecute serious international crimes–war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.
The US is not a member of the ICC, as while President Clinton originally signed the Rome Statute (the ICC’s underlying treaty) in 2000, it was never ratified by Congress and was then ‘unsigned’ by President Bush in 2002.
Following a recent pronouncement by US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton that it is a “great regret” the US is not a member of the ICC, those against US involvement have taken the opportunity to explain their position, and to urge the Obama administration against joining the court.
Specifically, the Heritage Foundation quotes former War Crimes Ambassador David J Scheffer, chief US negotiator at the Rome Conference, as to why the US in 1998 voted against the Rome Statute – that it “provides a recipe for politicization of the court.” Following this 1998 explanation, Scheffer has argued for qualified US involvement in the court, the US having received certain relevant concessions.
The Heritage Foundation cites problems with checks and balances; with ICC judges being the ultimate arbiter of whether a state party has sufficiently prosecuted alleged criminal acts so as to preclude ICC jurisdiction (complementarity); with US citizens being subject to prosecution before the court; with the court’s being “slow to act”; with its lack of measurable deterrent effect; and with its ability to “investigate and prosecute crimes only after the fact.”
Aside from this last point – which begs the question as to how a court could possibly be expected to investigate and prosecute crimes before they occur – the report is an extremely good summary of the position of the US policy makers that have historically opposed the court.
From the stated intention to uphold the Vienna Convention to the signing of bilateral ‘Article 98 Agreements’ (after the Article of the Rome Statute that allows such arrangements) with countries who agree to not turn US citizens over to the ICC in exchange for continuation of certain funds, it outlines the peculiarities of the intersection of US and international law, and alludes to the public opinion toward international justice that have thus far kept the country from participating at the Hague.
