Assign5

NYU-A#5-MH
Maura Hegarty
October 22, 2000
International Organizations and Their Management – Prof. Kamal
Arguments for and Against US Ratification of the International Criminal Court

Introduction:
   Since the end of World War II, nations have searched for an effective way to punish states and individuals for crimes against humanity, human right violations and war crimes. The methods used to judge state leaders, military personnel and civilians have ranged from the formal Nuremberg Trials to the ad-hoc international tribunals used in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. In July 1998, 120 states voted to approve a treaty to establish the International Criminal Court (ICC), which would become the first permanent international institution with jurisdiction over various international crimes. This represents a significant step in international law and against international crimes. However, the United States has expressed concern with the details of the treaty and is unlikely to ratify it. Arguments for and against US ratification of the treaty are discussed below.

What is the International Criminal Court?
    The ICC was established 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.” This significant development in international law is officially called the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and was designed as an autonomous organ, completely independent of the UN. The main purposes of the ICC are to achieve justice for all, to end impunity, to help end conflicts, to remedy the deficiencies of ad hoc tribunals, to take over when national criminal justice institutions are unwilling or unable to act and to deter future war criminals.   The ICC seeks to end the inconsistency of punishment for war crimes that plagued the 20th century and to act as an international institution that can ensure all states and citizens an independent and effective remedy for crimes against humanity.

Arguments for US ratification of the International Criminal Court:
    The United States has aggressively fought for punishment of those held accountable for war crimes since the end of WWII. Specifically, the “US has been the prime mover for additional international criminal tribunals in the former Yugoslavia, Iraq, Cambodia and belatedly, Rwanda.”   In addition to historic and recent support for the creation of international legal body, arguments for ratification of the ICC include:
      - The ICC will act as a meaningful deterrent against future aggression
      - Successful deterrence can help end regional instability which is often caused by crimes against humanity, war crimes and human rights violations
      - A permanent legal body could act in a more consistent and effective manor than the creation of ad-hoc tribunals
      - The creation of tribunals for specific situations is more costly and time consuming then having one standing body
      - American sovereignty will not be adversely affected under the ICC treaty because national courts will still be able to act and will continue to have primary responsibility in the area of war crimes
      - Without ratification the US could effectively be isolated in the international community and therefore, the “best protection would be to sign and ratify the statute and thus ensure that U.S. involvement in the selection of judges and prosecutors”

Arguments against US ratification of the International Criminal Court:
      Though the US has championed the idea of an international criminal court, there are numerous arguments against US ratification of the Rome statute. A majority of the arguments against ratification are due to the perceived loss of American sovereignty under an international court. Specific arguments against the ICC are as follows:
      - Tribunals have never acted as a successful deterrent against war crimes in the past
      - The international court would not have an acceptable constitutional base.
      - Without final authority resting with the Security Council, US interests would not be served:
      - US inability to veto jurisdiction or prosecution of America civilian and military personnel would allow these individuals to be open to politically motivated prosecutions       - Allowing the court to charge and prosecute American citizens, especially its soldiers, sailors and airmen would result in a severe risk to the US and the international community:
       - Regarding the possible prosecution of members of the American military, the US felt that the “court places at risk those who shoulder the responsibility for international peace and security”
      - Without protection for the American military, continued involvement in peacekeeping and international   conflicts would be too risky and therefore, unlikely

Conclusion:
       The arguments for and against US ratification of the ICC are persuasive. At first glance, the development of the ICC does threaten US sovereignty. However, upon closer examination it becomes obvious that the formation and success of the ICC would be beneficial to the US. While tribunals may not have acted as a deterrent in the past, that is because there was no permanent body and numerous crimes against humanity have been committed and never prosecuted. Deterring war crimes would lead to greater regional and global stability, a definite benefit to US military, political and economic interests. In addition, US national courts would not become obsolete upon formation of the ICC. The ICC would only act when national courts were unable to do so. While prosecution of American soldiers and leaders under the ICC is a possibility, the ICC will also serve to protect these same soldiers if they are every captured by enemy forces. The ICC will not replace the US Constitution and effectively remove US sovereignty. However, the ICC will ensure that the moral and legal interests of the US and the international community are upheld in an independent, non-political atmosphere.