The United States and the International Criminal Court - Research Paper Example

? The United s and the International Criminal Court It is important to understand the major shifts and changes occurring in the U.S. history especially pertaining to the issues of the court. The International Criminal Court was established and impartially approved by the United States because of several complex reasons. That is why it becomes essential to study the connection between the United States and the International Criminal Court. The U.S. not only objected to the court including the undefined crime of aggression it also disapproved the nature of the authorization required by the Treaty. The interest that the U.S. showed in the formation of the criminal court largely opposed its final decision against the Rome Statute. The United States and the International Criminal Court The United States has always shown interest in the formation of the criminal court since 1995. However in July 1998, after endless preparations and negotiations in Rome, as many as 120 states voted for the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC). It officially came into existence in July 2002. This also marked the day when the President also signed the American Service members’ Protection Act (ASPA) restricting the U.S. from giving assistance to the ICC. The international norms as well as institutions have a significant effect on the states and individuals. The ICC is the world’s first permanent judicial body with utmost jurisdiction to try those individuals who were accused of war crimes or for that matter, crime against humanity (Eisea 2002). A large part of the United States foreign policy is moving at a smooth pace. The situation in the United States and all over the world had begun to deteriorate as the crime rate started to increase. It is for this reason that the majority of the international states had decided to create an international court dealing with mass atrocities. This would not only help solve various criminal acts but also prohibit the severe violation of human rights all across the world. There have been instances in the past whereby the United States underwent a great challenge from the International Criminal Court. United Nations and many other democratic nations have openly welcomed and supported the ICC for its performance, although the United States initially voted against the Statute of the International Criminal Court the reason being that ICC may assert jurisdiction over the U.S. soldiers charged with crime which would be a result of legitimate uses of force (Eisea 2002). As late as in 2005 the United States decided not to block a sensitive Security Council resolution indicating the situation in Darfur region of Sudan to the ICC prosecutor. The ICC depends on the support as well as cooperation by the States and other international organization (Taft & Wald 2009). The International Criminal Court jurisdiction extends to the most heinous crimes committed at international level. It thus becomes important for two reasons. It offers an advanced means to revise the foreign policies through alternatives especially after World War II. It extends its reach by offering substantial hope and underscoring the significance of international law (Sewall & Kaysen 2000). Even if the ICC acts alone or with a national court, it can provide a model for fair and deliberate administration of justice. With all the qualities it is equipped with, it faces countless uncertainties with regard to how it enforces justice and defines the interest that justice will serve. United States however is not concerned with these issues faces by the International Criminal Court. The main concerns that the United States shows towards the Court are objections in the legal framework on which the ICC is built. ICC must not be bound on all states irrespective of the war crimes each one of them have. Secondly the ICC’s definitions of crimes such as genocide, war crimes and those perpetrated against humanity are narrower than the international law. The Rome Statute was seriously flawed according to the U.S because it goes against the national interests and constitutional experience of the United States (Frye 1999). A few of the weaknesses of the ICCs as mentioned briefly above are that it reverses the policy of four years standing that was extremely beneficial for a permanent international criminal court. It also fails to meet the needs of the U.S. diminishing its credibility on human rights and humanitarian issues at large. It also overlooks U.S. participation in countless treaties that allows U.S. citizens committing a crime to be accountable for economic actions in the international jurisdictions (Frye 1999). As a concluding remark one must recognize the tensions between the nations as well as the hierarchy of the International Criminal Court for which the United States seems the least interested. Improving the ICC seems to be a far cry. The administration, it has been stated in several researches, is seeking a greater protection for the American troops deployed abroad. It can also seek binding interpretation of the text which is found in the Rome Preparatory Commission. It is highly important for the ICC to recognize that the New Land has to offer many such warnings. The organization must be well equipped with all the necessary items in place. There are two reasons why it is important to assess the response of the United States towards the ICC; U.S. has stood as superpower since the fall of the Soviet Union. In addition to that the stance of the U.S. has “practical ramifications for the feasibility of the court” (Driscoll 2004). “The ICC’s flaws may allow it to be used by some countries to bring trumped-up charges against American citizens, who, due to the prominent role played by the United States in world affairs, may have greater exposure to such charges than citizens of other nations.” (Elsea 2002) One can only hope for a better future for the United States which is struggling to improve in all the spheres which have been integrated and properly introduced to the public. It is quite surprising to know that those new to the concept still seek their proof of being identifiable among the native crowds. America’s conduct towards humanity and the attitude on Iraq War was another weakness on their part (Elsea 2002). If the United States continues to think highly of them then it must join. The picture becomes clearer and the vision expands. The main role of the International Criminal Court is to reduce injustice over the globe. It is disappointing to see a strong misjudgment such as sending an innocent man behind jail rather than a genuine killer who deserves to be taken action upon. One still wonders why the criminals cannot be caught when they are deeply involved in a much channelized crime scene (Frye 1999). It could have been easier for the U.S. to find out about the core issues still faced by the ICC which seems to have improved the tensions prevailing in the society at this hour. Each country has its own traits and it is for this reason that the U.S. seems to be at war of rhetoric against various organizations. References Driscoll, W., Zompetti, J. P., & Zompetti, S. (2004). The International Criminal Court: Global politics and the quest for justice. New York: International Debate Education Association. Elsea, J., & Library of Congress. (2002). U.S. policy regarding the international criminal court. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service [Library of Congress.] Frye, A., & Council on Foreign Relations. (1999). Toward an International Criminal Court?: Three options presented as presidential speeches. New York, N.Y: Council on Foreign Relations. Sewall, S. B., & Kaysen, C. (2000). The United States and the international criminal court: National security and international law. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Taft, W. H., Wald, P. M., Task Force on U.S. Policy Toward the ICC., & American Society of International Law. (2009). U.S. policy toward the International Criminal Court: Furthering positive engagement. Washington, DC: American Society of International Law. Read More