United States and ICC



United States and ICC

The United States has been opposing the ICC since its inception which has been a source of surprise and disappointment for many countries in the world. This has sparked outrage by human rights organizations, and many justice groups that have widely criticized the exclusion of the United States from ICC. Former U.S President, Bill Clinton took some initiative by signing up to the ICC in 2000, but however did not submit it in senate for ratification. Later Bush administration declined to be a part of ICC by unsigning the agreement that Clinton had signed. The U.S went to the extent of threatening military force if any of its national were detained at The Hague, while keeping up its pressure on several countries for not signing any agreement that would surrender American nationals to The Hague. The current Obama administration has been a bit different by forming a working relationship with the ICC.

These moves have put the credibility of a nation in doubt that often appears vocal in human rights issues, and calls for the promotion of human rights. The objection that the United States has forwarded for its refusal to be part of ICC is that an international body would have jurisdiction over the U.S and its nationals maybe prosecuted on political grounds. These justifications do not hold ground as the ICC would only interfere where the member's states are not capable of, or are unwilling to adhere to the policies of ICC. U.S would have been able to prosecute its people on its own soil without a foreign body having to interfere (www.globalissues.org).

The year 2002 was a bizarre one for the U.S in its relations with the ICC. The passing of the American Service members Protection Act (ASPA), meant that along with threatening use of force against the Hague for liberating any American national held at Hague, the law also called for the withdrawal of military assistance being given to countries who became a party to the ICC treaty, and also restricted the American participation in U.N peacekeeping programs until and unless its nationals were granted immunity. The law was noteworthy for its dual nature that while the U.S worked to shield its national from facing justice, there were some provisions that called for U.S assisting in bringing other people accused of genocide and war crimes to justice. This brought in condemnation from the Human Rights Watch.

In line with its threats that the United Sates will withdraw military assistance to members that would not guarantee the U.S. immunity from ICC prosecution, the U.S. cut off military assistance to 35 countries in a move that was dubbed as bullying tactics by Human Rights Watch, and blackmailing by Amnesty International.

The American aloofness from ICC is on account of its own covert role in which the U.S. officially and unofficially has been supportive of repressive regimes, while keeping it hidden from its own public. The United States, as projected by the American ambassador, Bill Richardson ...