The US Refusal to Join the International Criminal Court - Essay Example

Is U.S. Refusal to Join the International Criminal Court Wise? The international criminal court came into being as a result of the Rome Statue, which was signed by more than hundred state parties. The main objective of creating an international court as to monitor and prosecute crimes that were beyond or of a higher magnitude than the courts in the respective areas where the actual crimes were committed would handle. Mainly the court was supposed to specialize in crimes related to genocides, crimes against humanity and any other crimes that amounted to aggression (Sewall, Sarah & Carl). Even before the Rome Statue came into being the United States of America played a critical role in enhancing global security and peace. This was mainly achieved through the department of security sending us troops to war torn countries to bring peace and also engaging warring groups in peace talks. It is noted that America was greatly involved in the creation of the international court of justice in Yugoslavia to bring to book the perpetrators of crimes during the long period of war that hit the nation (Sewall, Sarah, & Carl). The perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide were also charged before an international court, which was established in Kampala by the efforts of the American government in its bid to ensure international peace and security is maintained at all times. USA has always been in the forefront agitating for global peace, and that can be denoted by its numerous efforts in implementing that very policy. That notwithstanding in 1990 it was the US government that came up with the idea of coming up with an international court that would be responsible of prosecuting individuals who committed certain crimes that jeopardize international peace and security (Sewall, Sarah, & Carl). It is from this idea that the Rome Statue was developed and implemented to create the international criminal court which is responsible of ensuring perpetrators of crimes against humanity are prosecuted and charged according to the procedures of the court regardless of the legal procedures that exist in their respective countries of residence. The US government was committed to the constitution of the Rome statue until it reached a point where the interests of the US governments and those of its citizens were not considered in the provisions that sought to form the international criminal court. It is from this instance that USA decided to cut its cooperation and support of the whole process which would later come to from the ICC (Sewall, Sarah & Carl). USA as the world superpower is involved in a number of overseas military exercises aimed at promoting global peace at the same time safeguarding the interests of the American government and those of its allies. Thus in the process of conducting those numerous missions a lot of people die as a result of incursions or forceful disintegrating militia groups that pose a threat to regional or international peace (Sewall, Sarah & Carl, 2000). The provisions in the Rome Statue provides that such actions would lead the soldiers be prosecuted together with the top leadership that authorized the same. This among others formed the formidable reason against which the US government decided not to ratify the Rome Statue as it would subject its soldiers and citizens to unfair prosecutions. However, in the year 2000 the Clinton administration signed the Statue but it as un-signed later by the Bush administration on advice from the previous regime (Sewall, Sarah & Carl). The idea of the government of the United States of America refusing to join the international criminal court is wise and well informed to begin with; USA is one of the most elite nation in the world in terms of wealth, education, technology and any other measurable parameters that favor it (Sewall, Sarah & Carl). Thus, it is not prudent for a superpower to demonstrate legal inefficiency to subscribe to a court which is basically meant to prosecute cases that have proved not prosecutable in their respective countries where the crimes were originally committed. The provisions of the Rome statute clearly state that the international court prosecutor will only come into a case on request by the victims or citizens of where the crime was originally committed or if the legal mechanism in the country where the crimes were committed is not elaborate enough to handle those case. Hence it was a bold step for the US government not to join the ICC as it demonstrated to the world that as a nation it is capable to handle its legal issue without any intervention from outside interest which would infringe on its sovereignty as an independent nation. ICC is a political tool that has no power to enforce its ruling on individuals or groups whose nations does not allow implementation (Sewall, Sarah & Carl). For instance if the US government was a signatory of the Rome Statue and its top leaders are prosecuted by the court the US government may decide not to cooperate with the court and thus no legal action is going to be taken to those individuals. The ICC does not have the relevant mechanisms for apprehending or arresting criminals implicated by the court as it depends on state parties’ police to arrest them whenever they are in their respective territories. Due to the nature of diplomatic ties that exist between nations the arrest warrants that are issued by the court may not be honored by even state parties for the sake of maintaining good diplomatic relationships between the concerned nations (Sewall, Sarah & Carl). Moreover, every nation in the world has its interests ranging from natural resources to security. Thus to ensure they get a competitive edge over rival nations they will tend utilize the court as a tool to silence those nations that pose as potential threats in their pursuit for their interests. The US government has conflicting interests with many nations of the world , hence the ICC would have been the most importunate tool that these nations could utilize to ensure they bring it down of make it disown its policies and play second fiddle to their demands (Sewall, Sarah, & Carl). This brings out how the court is open to political manipulation and with time the objective of the court will drift to only political issues which are not part of what it was initially mandated to accomplish. Among the reasons that led the US government to oppose the Rome Statue was the fact that the court was bestowed with immense powers without accountability to any relevant institution, for instance, the United Nations Security Council. This allows the court prosecutor to choose, which case to prosecute and which not to posecute without being questioned on the credibility or criteria he/she used to pick up the case. This gives room for political manipulation to set in as some countries or individuals may be unfairly targeted by the court under manipulation from certain powers to safeguard their interests (Sewall, Sarah, & Carl). That notwithstanding the court is ordained with unprecedented power in the sense that it can interpret the laws in its fashion and impose those that are subscribed to the Rome Statue to adopt them without question. Furthermore, the arms of the international criminal court do not undergo any form of scrutiny or oversight thus they are prone to making erroneous mistakes without anyone raising eyebrows (Sewall, Sarah, & Carl). The US government is an independent nation which is entitled to its sovereignty (Sewall, Sarah & Carl). If an external court has the jurisdiction of prosecuting the nationals, military personnel and even elected leaders of a sovereign stable country is indeed enough proof that the said country is not yet independent as its sovereignty is under trial. The provisions of the Rome Statue state that the court has the jurisdiction of prosecuting individual of non-party states where circumstances provides. This provision is an outright dent on the so eighty of independent nations as their citizens cannot be tried by external courts without their authorization. This particular provision culminated to the enacted of amendment 98 by the USA congress to protect citizens of America, its military personnel or any alien residing in the nation from any form of prosecution by the ICC (Sewall, Sarah & Carl). It also bestowed power on the president to use all powers possible to flee any of its citizens that have been put into custody by the court even if it means use of military intervention. These were legitimate efforts by the government to protect its sovereignty as an independent state (Sewall, Sarah & Carl). Finally the refusal by the US government to join ICC was a wise move as subscribing to the Rome Statue would negatively impact on its foreign and security policies, which it is keen to maintain to ensure its overseas interest are safeguarded at all times (Sewall, Sarah & Carl). For instance, the US government invaded Afghanistan to fight terrorist group Al Qaeda, which was associated with the 9/11 bombing. The aftermath of the incursion was massive causalities and destruction of properties among other humanitarian crises that came up. This was in order for the security of the people America and its interests being safeguarded. But had it that USA was a signatory of the Rome Statue it would lead to a number of prosecutions against the crimes the soldiers performed while on a mission. It is evident that the international criminal court’s objectives are not consistent with the security and foreign policy of US government thus it is still a wise move that the government did not litigate the Rome Statue. The immense powers that the court is bestowed with poses a challenge to the United Nation Security Council, which is mandated in ensuring international peace and security. Since the court is independent, the United Nation Security Council will not have authority to play an oversight role on the court to ensure its proceedings does not violate any provision of the UN Charter (Sewall, Sarah & Carl). Moreover, some of the crimes that the court purports to prosecute have not been given standard definitions. For instance, the crime of aggression has been under debate for more than seven years without any meaningful conclusion coming out of it. This implies that some individuals may be charged with crimes, which have not been fully defined. However, regardless of the many points justifying the reasons of the refusal of the United States being a signatory to the Rome Statute, critics argue that it is imprudent for the United States refusing to join the ICC because of the initial involvement of the U.S. in coming up with policy frameworks of the establishing international courts in Kampala and Yugoslavia for the prosecution of perpetrators of crimes against humanity. In addition, it is also unjustifiable refusing to join the Rome Statute because the U.S. like any other nation should be accountable for crimes against humanity it commits in other territories or within the United States if so they happened. In a nutshell, however, it is safe to conclude that it was wise for the US government to refrain from joining the international criminal court because membership would bring more negative effects on the United States than gains (Sewall, Sarah & Carl). Therefore, it was a prudent idea for the United States withdrawing from the Rome Statute. Work Cited Sewall, Sarah B, and Carl Kaysen. The United States and the International Criminal Court: National Security and International Law. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2000. Print. Read More