Originally published on the CGS blog on August 10, 2009.
Last week, Secretary Clinton lamented that the U.S. was not a member of the ICC, saying that this was “a great regret but a fact.” Her statement was followed by several news articles and opinion posts discussing her declaration and its implications. The Washington post ran an article today investigating U.S.’s history with the Court. Executive Vice President of GlobalSolutions.org, Bob Enholm, wrote a clear and convincing comment on this article, addressing the need for the U.S. to join the I.C.C.:
Mr. Bellinger:
You are correct that the American public approaches international institutions with “ambivalence” and that this is “unfortunate.” This will not change until persons as educated, thoughtful, experienced and respected as yourself fairly and accurately discuss the pros and cons of global institutions and the benefits of America’s participation in them.
Your description of the International Criminal Court is superficially evenhanded, but you exaggerate the negatives and gloss over facts that support the U.S. eventually joining the ICC.
The ICC is a court of severely limited jurisdiction and by its own terms defers to the jurisdiction of the United States and other countries that have an operating legal system. This is why our allies such as the United Kingdom are comfortable joining the ICC. The ICC is a permanent tribunal that obviates the need to establish a special purpose international criminal court, as was done at Nuremberg and more recently for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. What’s wrong with that?
The ICC has been operating for seven years and the nightmare scenarios raised by its opponents have not come to pass. In fact the ICC has been judicial, restrained and credible.
It is in the interest of the United States for there to be an international tribunal that can investigate and bring to justice the worst crimes committed by people who would otherwise act with impunity.
The United States helped create the ICC. It is in the interest of the United States to participate in the ICC where we can help build its credibility and shape its progress and development.
Of course, the United States is not going to join the ICC this year. I agree with your catalog of steps we can take in the near term to support the ICC. But you are too pessimistic about the prospects of the U.S. eventually joining the ICC.
The fundamental question is this: Are the citizens of the U.S. safer in a world in which there is a consensus supported around the globe that war crimes are illegal or in a world in which the U.S. attempts on a case-by-case basis to prosecute war crimes? Reasonable people can differ about the details, but that is the ground on which the discussion should take place.
Robert A. Enholm
Convinced? ACT NOW to support U.S. participation in the ICC!
