United States and the International Criminal Court - Research Paper Example

? THE ICC AND UNITED S The US has been an influential campaigner for the international rule of armed dispute since the organization of international humanitarian regulation. In fact, the Lieber policy, written at the United States government requested for the regulation of the armed forces conduct during the civil war, in United State, had a significant effect on the expansion of the humanitarian regulation rules enacted in the conventions at Hague. Evidence demonstrates that United States policy has enormous impacts on the ICC implementation and success in different global states. Introduction The international criminal court is the first permanent, external body of judiciary capable of prosecuting international cases and providing compensation to humanitarian case, (Khin, 2009). The purpose of international criminal court is to prosecute grave felonies against humanity irrespective of their perpetuators and judge suspects for intensive infringement of human rights, including those crimes executed during military struggles. Discussion International criminal court’s goals The key objective of international criminal court is to bring to justice and hold responsible the perpetrators of serious felonies against humankind such as felonies against civilians, genocide and grave war conflicts, (Lizardo, 2008). International Criminal Court aims to foster peace and fairness. The fundamental objective of the UN is to ensure universal honor of human rights and essential freedoms for people all over the world. In this perspective, few issues are of prodigious significance than the struggle against impunity and the fight for fairness and peace and people’s rights in disputed environment of the modern world. The creation of International Criminal Court is viewed as an imperative step forward, (Morris & Duke University, 2001). The ICC is labeled the missing link of the international lawful system to attain justice for humankind. The ICC addresses only issues among nations, not individuals. Without ICC for redressing individual responsibility as a strategy for enforcement, certain acts of grave human rights infringements and genocide will go scot-free. ICC aim at countering impunity and halting disputes. In conditions like those involving tribal conflict, violence calls for more violence, for instance one slaughter begets another slaughter. The surety that some war crime instigators can be judged in justice courts serves as a warning and increases the possibility of ending the conflict, (Candelaria & Naval Postgraduate School, 2003). The US attitude toward joining the ICC While the United States shows persistent loyalty to the expansion of international humanitarian policy, (subject to the present deteriorating acceptance of international law), this is mainly associated to the issue of the recent research. Although the United States accepts the development of overall applicable laws for management of armed dispute, the nation is highly reluctant to support the issue of the validity of the utilization of armed force by the United States to lawful control, (Sewall & Kaysen, 2000). Whereas the Hague conferences of peace did not address the ICC issue, they failed also to consider the establishment of an ICC for managing conflicts among states. The US delegation report demonstrated that even though the government of the United State was intensively in support of the international court, the nation was, together with other participating nations, unwilling to give in to forceful jurisdiction matters that characterized extensive national interest. Nevertheless, the United States supported the establishment of the Permanent Arbitration Court with it’s entirely consent oriented jurisdiction, partly because of its critical role in the international jurisprudence development, (Lizardo, 2008). The Americans view of the ICC is connected to both local and external view of American leadership legitimacy. Scholars have documented about the origins and significance of soft authority even for nations with an abundance of military power and economic dominance. A nation that depends on its political standards power can only negate from those standards without compromising the capacity to instill courage internally and externally, (Sewall & Kaysen, 2000). The US has been influential in campaigning for human rights; therefore, the International Criminal Court will be a significant symbol of the rights implementation. By assisting to integrate the foreign policy of America with moral relevance, the international criminal court may assist sustain internal support for consistent national participation in international issues from a population that massively seek a corporate policy that is supportive of their deeply held morals. The Americans view of the external court similarly has international impacts. To some of the states, such as various American closest colleagues, the international criminal court reflected acid check of commitment of America to the global and universal aspects of justice and humanitarian rights – US willingness to abide by the laws it creates for others, (Morris & Duke University, 2001). The United States reluctance to support the court, in fact, the United States warning to be a destroyer, undermine the capacity of the United State to maintain the international connections that are relevant for future security and success of America. Problems that U.S. foresees in becoming a member The United State fears that the international criminal court is an incipient system aspect of the world administration, a strategy in the power of hostile people and nations that will endeavor to restrict freedom of action of America, mainly with force use, (Lizardo, 2008). Therefore, to protect American sovereignty, united States choose to oppose ICC. Another anticipated challenge that international criminal court pose to United State is potential jurisdiction assertion over the United States soldiers responsible for war felonies as a result of legitimate force use, or its jurisdiction assertion over other United States of American officials responsible for conduct associated with initiatives of foreign policy, (Candelaria & Naval Postgraduate School, 2003). Experts suggest that prosecution threat by the international criminal court could hinder the US in conducting military functions and foreign policy projects, infringing on the United States Sovereignty, (Khin, 2009). The United State detractors opinion label the rejection as unwillingness by the US to be counted responsible for grave human rights impingement, or to the universal standards created for the entire world. Conclusion The US seems highly focused on adverse elements of the international criminal court such that it has nearly lost focused on the potential value of the court, and the costs of the United States estrangement from the international criminal court. The advantages of supporting international justices appear highly likely to be felt than the white elephant aspect of an unfruitful international criminal court upon which, American objections are centered. The earlier the US will allow constructive work to direct the court systems, the better the national interest of people will be served – buttressing United States prerogatives to international authority and reinforcing a new strategy to enhance United States national security purposes. References Candelaria, J., & Naval Postgraduate School (U.S.). (2003). Europe, the United States, and the international criminal court. Monterey, California: Naval Postgraduate School. Khin, M. S. (2009). The theory and practice of international law: Responses to a variety of international legal issues. New Delhi, India: Serials Publications. Lizardo, E. (2008). The United States position regarding the relationship between the United Nations Security Council and the International Criminal Court. Geneva: Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies. Morris, M. H., & Duke University. (2001). The United States and the International Criminal Court. Durham, N.C: Duke University School of Law. Sewall, S. B., & Kaysen, C. (2000). The United States and the international criminal court: National security and international law. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Read More