subscribe today for full site access

Should the US ratify the ICC?

 

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is a permanent international tribunal established to investigate and prosecute individuals accused of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community, including genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes 1. Established in 2002, the ICC is intended to be a “court of last resort,” intervening only when national authorities are unwilling or unable to prosecute such crimes 2. While many nations have embraced the ICC, the United States has remained a notable exception. This article will explore the ICC, the current US position, and the arguments for and against US ratification.

Overview of the ICC

Purpose

The ICC’s primary mission is to help end impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious international crimes and contribute to their prevention 3. By holding individuals accountable for their actions, the ICC aims to deter future atrocities and promote international peace and security 4. The ICC’s jurisdiction is limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole, namely genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression 5.

Jurisdiction

The ICC’s jurisdiction is limited to crimes committed after July 1, 2002, when the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the court, came into force 2. The ICC can only exercise its jurisdiction when national courts are unwilling or unable to prosecute criminals 6. This principle of complementarity ensures that the ICC does not replace national judicial systems but rather complements them. As stated in one analysis, “The ICC’s function is not to displace the criminal jurisdiction of any state, but rather to serve as an alternative judicial forum for states that are either ‘unwilling or unable genuinely’ to prosecute a suspect on its own accord” 7. The ICC can only investigate and prosecute individuals over the age of 18 who are nationals of a state within the Court’s jurisdiction, or who committed crimes on the territory of a State Party 8.

Structure

The ICC is composed of four organs: the Presidency, the Chambers, the Office of the Prosecutor, and the Registry 1. The Presidency is responsible for the administration of the Court 9. The Chambers, composed of 18 judges, fulfill the judicial functions of the Court 9. The Office of the Prosecutor investigates crimes and initiates criminal proceedings 6. The Registry provides administrative and operational support to the Court 1.

Emerging Areas of Focus

In recent years, the ICC has expanded its focus to include emerging areas of international criminal law. In 2024, the ICC Prosecutor launched two new initiatives:

  • Accountability for Environmental Crimes: This initiative aims to ensure that the Office of the Prosecutor takes a systematic approach to dealing with crimes within the Court’s jurisdiction committed by means of, or that result in, environmental damage 10. This reflects a growing recognition of the link between environmental destruction and international crimes.
  • Accountability for Gender Persecution: This initiative seeks to advance accountability for the crime against humanity of persecution on the grounds of gender 10. It will establish principles on gender persecution to provide guidance for increasing its prevention and ensuring the protection and participation of survivors.

These initiatives demonstrate the ICC’s commitment to adapting to evolving challenges and addressing new forms of international criminality.

The US Position on the ICC

The United States has a complex history with the ICC. While historically a strong supporter of international justice, the US has not ratified the Rome Statute 11.

Historical Context

The US participated in the negotiations that led to the creation of the court, but ultimately voted against the Rome Statute in 1998 12. President Clinton signed the Rome Statute in 2000 but did not submit it to the Senate for ratification 12. In 2002, President Bush effectively “unsigned” the treaty, stating that the US did not intend to ratify it and had no obligations toward it 12.

The US opposition to the ICC stems from several concerns, including:

  • National Sovereignty: The US government argues that the ICC could infringe on US sovereignty by asserting jurisdiction over US citizens without US consent 13. This concern is rooted in the US Constitution and the principle of checks and balances.
  • Lack of Checks and Balances: Some critics argue that the ICC lacks sufficient checks and balances to prevent political manipulation 13. They express concern about the potential for bias and abuse of power within the court.
  • Potential for Politically Motivated Prosecutions: There are concerns that the ICC could be used to target US military personnel and officials for political reasons 14. This concern is particularly acute given the US’s global military presence and its involvement in various conflicts.
  • Jurisdiction over Non-Party Nationals: The US has expressed specific concerns about the ICC’s jurisdiction over nationals of non-party states. While acknowledging that the ICC can exercise jurisdiction in certain situations, such as when a case is referred by the UN Security Council or the crime is committed on the territory of a State Party, the US maintains that this provision could be used to unfairly target US citizens 6.

Despite these concerns, the US has partially incorporated Rome Statute offenses into its national laws, including war crimes and genocide provisions 11. This indicates a degree of alignment between US law and the ICC’s objectives.

Recent Developments

In recent years, the US position on the ICC has been marked by a mix of cooperation and opposition. The Obama administration re-established a working relationship with the Court as an observer 16. However, the Trump administration took a more hostile stance, imposing sanctions on ICC officials involved in investigating US citizens 11. The Biden administration withdrew these sanctions but has supported sanctions against the Palestinian Authority for assisting the ICC in its investigation of alleged atrocities committed by Israeli and Hamas personnel 17.

The American Servicemembers’ Protection Act (ASPA), passed in 2002, authorizes the US president to use “all means necessary and appropriate” to free any US or allied personnel detained by the ICC 18. This act reflects the US government’s strong opposition to the ICC’s potential jurisdiction over US citizens.

In 2024, several developments have highlighted the ongoing tensions between the US and the ICC:

  • ICC arrest warrants for Israeli officials: In May 2024, the ICC prosecutor sought arrest warrants for three Hamas leaders and two senior Israeli officials for alleged war crimes committed in Palestine 19. This move drew criticism from some members of the US Congress who threatened to retaliate against the ICC 19.
  • US sanctions on the Palestinian Authority: The Biden administration supported legislation limiting aid to Gaza and the West Bank if the Palestinian Authority assists the ICC in its investigation of Israeli and Hamas personnel 17.
  • Continued US opposition to the ICC: Despite some calls for greater engagement with the ICC, the US government has maintained its opposition to the court and its jurisdiction over non-party states 18.

These developments underscore the challenges facing the US in navigating its relationship with the ICC.

Arguments for US Ratification of the ICC

Proponents of US ratification argue that joining the ICC would:

  • Strengthen international justice: By becoming a member of the ICC, the US would demonstrate its commitment to international justice and accountability 4. This would reinforce the US’s role as a global leader in promoting human rights and the rule of law. Joining the ICC would allow the US to actively participate in shaping international criminal law and contribute to a rules-based international order 11.
  • Promote global peace and security: Holding individuals accountable for international crimes can deter future atrocities and contribute to a more peaceful world 4. By joining the ICC, the US could help strengthen the international legal framework for preventing and punishing mass atrocities. The ICC can serve as a deterrent to leaders who might otherwise commit atrocities with impunity, promoting stability and security 20.
  • Enhance US leadership: Joining the ICC would allow the US to play a more active role in shaping the development of international criminal law 4. This would provide the US with a greater voice in shaping the future of international justice. By participating in the ICC, the US could help ensure that the court operates fairly and effectively, safeguarding US interests and values 20. This would allow the US to influence the court’s decisions and ensure that its procedures are consistent with US legal standards.
  • Protect US interests: By participating in the ICC, the US could help ensure that the court operates fairly and effectively, safeguarding US interests and values 20. This would allow the US to influence the court’s decisions and ensure that its procedures are consistent with US legal standards. Ratification would allow the US to engage with the ICC and advocate for its interests, rather than remaining on the sidelines 22.
  • Uphold the rule of law: Ratification would demonstrate US support for the rule of law and the principle of equality before the law 4. This would send a powerful message to the world that the US is committed to upholding international legal norms. By holding all individuals accountable, regardless of their position or nationality, the ICC upholds the principle of equality before the law 4.
  • Promote respect for international humanitarian law: By providing accountability for war crimes, the ICC promotes respect for the laws of war, which protect civilians as well as soldiers 11. This can help to prevent future violations and ensure greater compliance with international humanitarian law.
  • Set a higher standard for human rights: The US should hold itself to a higher standard and demonstrate its commitment to human rights by joining the ICC 23. This would send a strong message to the world that the US is serious about protecting human rights and holding perpetrators accountable.

Arguments Against US Ratification of the ICC

Opponents of US ratification argue that joining the ICC would:

  • Threaten US sovereignty: The ICC could infringe on US sovereignty by asserting jurisdiction over US citizens without US consent 13. This concern is central to the US’s constitutional framework and its understanding of national self-determination. The ICC’s jurisdiction over non-party nationals could be used to unfairly target US citizens, potentially undermining US sovereignty 13.
  • Expose US military personnel to politically motivated prosecutions: There are concerns that the ICC could be used to target US troops and officials for political reasons 14. This could potentially undermine US military effectiveness and morale. The ICC’s lack of accountability to the UN Security Council raises concerns about the potential for politically motivated prosecutions of US military personnel 13.
  • Undermine US national security: Joining the ICC could restrict US foreign policy options and hinder its ability to conduct military operations 7. This could limit the US’s ability to respond to international crises and protect its interests abroad. The ICC could potentially interfere with US military operations and limit its ability to act decisively in international affairs 13.
  • Subject Americans to a foreign legal system: Opponents argue that the ICC’s procedures and standards are different from those of the US legal system, potentially jeopardizing the rights of US citizens 14. They argue that the ICC lacks the same due process protections as the US legal system. The ICC’s procedures and standards may not be compatible with the US legal system, potentially jeopardizing the rights of US citizens 14.
  • Weaken US influence: Joining the ICC could limit US ability to influence international justice efforts through alternative mechanisms 7. This could reduce the US’s leverage in promoting international justice on its own terms. The ICC could potentially undermine US efforts to promote international justice through alternative means, such as ad hoc tribunals or bilateral agreements 13.
  • Violate the US Constitution: Some argue that US participation in the ICC would violate the Constitution by subjecting Americans to trial in an international court without the guarantees of the Bill of Rights 24. This raises concerns about the compatibility of the ICC with the US legal framework.
  • Surrender American sovereignty: Ratification of the Rome Statute could be seen as a surrender of American sovereignty, undercutting the US’s right to self-government 24. This raises fundamental questions about the US’s role in the international legal order.
  • Create a dangerous precedent: By joining the ICC, the US could set a precedent for other countries to assert jurisdiction over US citizens in international courts 7. This could potentially expose US citizens to a wider range of legal challenges in foreign jurisdictions.

Conclusion

The decision of whether or not to ratify the ICC is a complex one with significant implications for US foreign policy, national security, and international justice. Proponents argue that joining the ICC would strengthen international justice, promote global peace, and enhance US leadership. They see the ICC as a vital tool for upholding the rule of law and preventing atrocities. Opponents counter that the ICC threatens US sovereignty, exposes US personnel to politically motivated prosecutions, and undermines US national security. They argue that the ICC’s structure and jurisdiction pose unacceptable risks to US interests and values.

The US faces a fundamental tension between its stated commitment to international justice and its reluctance to join the ICC 11. This tension is rooted in concerns about sovereignty, national security, and the potential for politically motivated prosecutions. The US’s continued opposition to the ICC could have significant consequences for its relationships with allies and its ability to promote human rights globally 4. By refusing to join the court, the US risks undermining its credibility as a champion of international justice and weakening its ability to influence the development of international criminal law.

Ultimately, the decision of whether or not to ratify the ICC requires a careful balancing of these competing interests and a thorough assessment of the potential benefits and risks. The US must weigh its commitment to international justice against its concerns about sovereignty and national security. The future of the US relationship with the ICC will depend on how it navigates this complex and evolving landscape.

Works cited

  1. www.icc-cpi.int, accessed December 12, 2024, https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/Publications/understanding-the-icc.pdf
  2. International Criminal Court: What is the ICC and what does it do? – BBC News, accessed December 12, 2024, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-11809908
  3. What is the ICC and what does it do? OBJECTIVES LESSON OUTLINE Part A – | International Criminal Court, accessed December 12, 2024, https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/lesson1.pdf
  4. 20 ICC benefits | Coalition for the International Criminal Court, accessed December 12, 2024, https://www.coalitionfortheicc.org/explore/20-icc-benefits
  5. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court | OHCHR, accessed December 12, 2024, https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/rome-statute-international-criminal-court
  6. International Criminal Court – Wikipedia, accessed December 12, 2024, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court
  7. A Global Court? U.S. Objections to the International Criminal Court and Obstacles to Ratification, accessed December 12, 2024, https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1472&context=hrbrief
  8. How the ICC Works: home, accessed December 12, 2024, https://how-the-icc-works.aba-icc.org/
  9. Structure of the ICC – International Criminal Court Project, accessed December 12, 2024, https://www.aba-icc.org/about-the-icc/structure-of-the-icc/
  10. Key ICC Judicial & Other Developments (January 2024 – June 2024) – Rome Statute Campaign Updates – Parliamentarians for Global Action, accessed December 12, 2024, https://www.pgaction.org/ilhr/rome-statute/updates/key-icc-developments-h1-2024.html
  11. United States | Coalition for the International Criminal Court, accessed December 12, 2024, https://www.coalitionfortheicc.org/country/united-states
  12. Q&A: The International Criminal Court and the United States | Human Rights Watch, accessed December 12, 2024, https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/09/02/qa-international-criminal-court-and-united-states
  13. The U.S. Should Not Join the International Criminal Court | The Heritage Foundation, accessed December 12, 2024, https://www.heritage.org/report/the-us-should-not-join-the-international-criminal-court
  14. The International Criminal Court vs. the American People | The Heritage Foundation, accessed December 12, 2024, https://www.heritage.org/report/the-international-criminal-court-vs-the-american-people
  15. Why America is facing off against the International Criminal Court | ECFR, accessed December 12, 2024, https://ecfr.eu/article/commentary_why_america_is_facing_off_against_the_international_criminal_cou/
  16. United States and the International Criminal Court – Wikipedia, accessed December 12, 2024, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court
  17. Harris, Trump, and the ICC – what IR scholars think – Good Authority, accessed December 12, 2024, https://goodauthority.org/news/harris-trump-international-criminal-court-icc-what-scholars-think/
  18. The United States Raises a Middle Finger to the International Criminal Court: The Forty-Eighth Newsletter (2024), accessed December 12, 2024, https://thetricontinental.org/newsletterissue/icc-arrest-warrants-israel/
  19. US: Biden Should Oppose Sanctions on International Criminal Court, accessed December 12, 2024, https://civiliansinconflict.org/press-releases/us-biden-should-oppose-sanctions-on-icc/
  20. Excerpt: Toward an International Criminal Court? – Council on Foreign Relations, accessed December 12, 2024, https://www.cfr.org/excerpt-toward-international-criminal-court
  21. The US-ICC Relationship | International Criminal Court Project, accessed December 12, 2024, https://www.aba-icc.org/about-the-icc/the-us-icc-relationship/
  22. The United States Should Ratify the Rome Statute – Lieber Institute – West Point, accessed December 12, 2024, https://lieber.westpoint.edu/united-states-should-ratify-rome-statute/
  23. It’s Time to Ratify the Rome Statute. No, Really This Time. – Harvard Political Review, accessed December 12, 2024, https://harvardpolitics.com/ratify-rome/
  24. Casey Paper The Case Against Supporting the International Criminal Court Lee A. Casey1 The United States should not ratify the I – WashU Law, accessed December 12, 2024, https://law.washu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/The-Case-Against-Supporting-the-International-Criminal-Court.pdf
Recent Posts