World Power in World Court The International Criminal Court (ICC) was created on July 17, 1998, during a convention subsidized by the United Nations “to investigate, try, and punish individuals who violate certain international human rights norms.” (Source 2) Specifically these crime would include genocide, serious war crimes, severe terrorist attacks, and crimes against humanity; intense crimes that most treaties and customary practices already condemn. This institution is not directly affiliated with the UN, as neither the Court nor Assembly of States Parties conduct a UN body. Though the discussions and conciliations take place at UN forums, it will be managed and financed by merely those nations who accept the Statute, independent of the UN. And as the United States has actively participated and ratified organizations like NAFTA and WTO, other adjudicatory treaties, the impact of the ICC will not greatly exceed what the U.S is currently facing, only allowing it to, instead, flourish and gain positive momentum. As a the great world power, it is our duty to join the World Court in order to maintain its validity and effectiveness, while promoting international peace and sanctions to those deemed deserving. Especially after 9-11, it‟s no wonder that the U.S is on its toes regarding national security, so one of the reasons for objecting the acceptance to the ICC is the fear of an attack by hostile countries. This risk, unfortunately, will never be completely halted, as there are many international leaders, each with their own ideas and ambitions. This World Court would, on the contrary, prevent attacks on the U.S, at least by its members, because those crimes would then be dealt with accordingly in the Court. In addition, China, Libya, Iraq, Israel, Qatar, and Yemen voted against the ruling, so no direct U.S enemies have joined. “Rogue nations are extremely unlikely to become a party to the Court because the crimes they commit against their own people in their own countries could then be heard by the Court.” (Source 1) Attacks directly motivated by the Court on the U.S will not occur, as the States sovereignty will not be infringed upon. Because the Court has authority over people not nations, actionas can only be directed at individuals creating havoc and as in any treaty, there are no forced obligations. “Until the US chooses to ratify the Statue, the Court will not be able to gain custody of or prosecute US citizens who remain in the US,” (Source 1) of course outside the US, citizens are subject to the law of the state they reside in. Moreover, since the States interpret treaty law as Law of the Land they should be more inclined to participate in a system which acts as an international policeman, attempting to make the system less anarchic, which we have proven to desire through even the creation of the UN. Both members and non-members have the choice of what information to spill and what to conceal during hearings, while limiting the Court to cases which are not being investigated by the state, proving once again the acceptance of state sovereignty. Lastly, the crimes that the Court is intended to hear have all been collectively denounced. “The US has participated in international criminal tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda (ICTY and ICTR), and urged others to participate without sovereignty concerns arising.” (Source 1) So clearly, when US interests are involved, the holy word: „sovereignty‟ goes in the pocket, while the actions considered necessarily are taken, in other words, of interest to America. In addition, no protests came from the US when Serbian officials surrendered and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia diminished, as Yugoslavia was not part of the UN, which consequently lead to the creation of ICTY.
Furthermore, the US took full responsibility in expelling Saddam Hussein from Iraq and trying to instill a peaceful democratic order, free from corruption and persecution, obviously acting when directly interested. “Parties to the Court can choose not accept the Court‟s jurisdiction over war crime for seven years.” (Source 1) Allowing the US to consider how the Court handles other situations and revoke its membership if the actions taken are not to America‟s liking. The US clearly involves itself with war crimes and humanitarian issues around the world, so why not join an organized body dealing with those issues? As globalization seems to expand, the interests of states become more collective and reciprocal, versus the Feudal system which called for numerous territorial conflicts and obliviousness to human rights. This requires that all major actors in the international community, especially the world superpower, to promptly participate in organizations promoting collective security, as the UN in which the US takes part, in addition to ones attempting to thwart horrendous crimes, like genocide and terror, ironically supported by all major powers except the US. America already shows interest in humanitarian issues, why not join an institute and help it thrive in that department?!
Sources: 1) “Myths about United States Sovereignty and the International Court” 2) “International Criminal Court vs. American People” - February 1999