NYU-A5-WL
Wenyi Lai
Oct. 22, 2000
P11.2210: International Organization and Their Management: The United Nations
Ambassador Ahmad Kamal
The Arguments for and against US Ratification of the International Criminal Court
Introduction:
The International Criminal Court had its origin in World War II. In 1992, the UN General Assembly directed the International Law Commission to elaborate a draft statute for it. After the practice of International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, in 1998, more than 100 countries approved the statute that formally established the Court. International Criminal Court was intended to be a permanent court with the power to investigate and bring to justice individuals who commit the most serious crimes of concern to the international community, such as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The critical issue here is that the United States of America was not expected to join the Court. As the only super power in this world, the ratification of the US is the crucial factor for the success of International Criminal Court. Here are the pro and con arguments of the US=s decision.
Pros:
Standing by the conception of Arealpolitik@, the United States insisted on the Security Council having the final say in all prosecutory judgements. The United States is the one who deploys troops mostly whole worlds. In fact, the US=s support to peacekeeping missions is very important. It means that the US is the one to run a risk. To prevent American soldiers, sailors and airmen from threats of supreme tribunals, to prevent American security strategy from constraints, and to prevent the global security structure from collapse, the US can=t give away its power to the International Criminal Court.
Cons.:
The existing bodies to prosecute and sentence the international individual crime is not sufficient to prevent human rights from violation. The creation of International Criminal Court is an achievement of global security and humanity. The Court is an independent body to judge without political constraints. The Court will investigate not only the brutal crime of individuals, but also the peacekeeping mission of the UN. Unlike the Security Council that represents big five=s will, the Court is the ideal organ for all people in this world. I will give more analysis in the next paragraph.
Analysis & Conclusion:
Article one of the International Criminal Court:AIt shall be a permanent institution and shall have the power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern.@ The POWER of the court made the US to oppose it. Defining the US=s opposing to the Court as the rivalry between North vs South and Pro-US vs Anti-US is not correct. First, most of the countries in Europe(UK, France, Germany, Russia) had approved the establishment of the International Criminal Court. Second, joining the United States in opposing the treaty was Algeria, China, Iraq, Libya, etc. Those countries are apparently not the Pro-US ones. In fact, many of the NGOs and human rights associations that argue most forcefully for an unrestricted criminal court were American-based. Who really oppose the Court? The decision-makers of the United States, the American political elite insisted the principles of realpolitik and put the American national interests as supreme value. So, it is rather defining the opposing of the US as the rivalry between Realist vs Liberalism. If the enforcement of International Criminal Court overwhelmed the US=s national interests, the US would be reluctant to support the UN=s peacekeeping missions. To gain the US=s support to the statute of the Court, more definition on Aself-defence@ and Aaggression@ must be made. And the balance of power and the political concern are inevitable to be included in the International Criminal Court.