US OFFICIAL POSITION REGARDING THE ICC

Official Position of United States Regarding the International Criminal Court (ICC)



Official Position of United States Regarding the International Criminal Court (ICC)

Introduction

On April 11, 2002, the International Criminal Court (ICC) became a reality. This Court will have jurisdiction over the most serious crimes—genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and (eventually) aggression. While most U.S. allies (including Canada and the United Kingdom) support the ICC, the United States remains opposed to it, arguing that its reach is too wide and that it could become a tool for politically motivated prosecutions against Americans. This paper discusses official position of United States regarding the International Criminal Court (ICC) in a concise and comprehensive way.

Discussion

In words of Broomhall (2002) United States is against ICC, which, in spite of being a strong proponent of the creation of an international criminal court in the past, has become one of the ICC's loudest critics. The U.S. position is founded upon what it sees as deficiencies within the Court's Statute, which it believes could negatively affect American citizens. In order to understand these concerns, it is therefore important to investigate what is, and is not, contained in this Statute. This will provide both an insight into the likely future shape of the new Court, and an indication of why the United States has pitted itself against some of its closest allies in opposition to it (Broomhall, 2002).

The reason that the United States voted in opposition to most of its allies, and with some of its staunchest political and ideological opponents, is due to its insistence that the compromise struck in Rome will result in a Court that is fatally flawed and potentially dangerous to American interests and American citizens (Broomhall, 2002). In order to understand this position, and that of those firmly in favor of the Court as well, it is essential to move beyond political rhetoric and analyze what the Rome Statute really says about what crimes the Court will be able to investigate, how cases will be brought before it, how broad its jurisdiction will be, and the relationship between the ICC and national courts.

The concerns expressed by the United States cannot, however, be considered in a vacuum. It is important that they be assessed in light of their effect on the proper functioning of the Court as a whole. As Philippe Kirsch, one of the key figures in the Rome negotiations, ...