The Bush administration has never had any solid reasons for opposing the International Criminal Court. Its objections basically amounted to sovereignty issues and paranoid visions of a court running amuck. But today it was forced to abandon its U.N. resolution which sought another year of immunity for American servicemembers.
It’s interesting that in two ways the U.S. has both demonstrated a “justified” fear of the court and at the same time shown that such fear is unwarranted. If the Abu Ghraib prison abuses constitute war crimes, it wouldn’t matter because Iraq isn’t a signatory to the ICC (but what if they become one after the transfer of power? Hmm…). But Afghanistan is. So what’s to stop Afghanistan from bringing a case for war crimes for say the deaths of innocent civilians or detainee abuses? The complementary provision. If the accused state makes a good faith effort to investigate the alleged crime, the court has no jurisdiction. And it seems that the U.S. has done this both in Afghanistan and Iraq with regards to detainee abuses at least.
But of course, the debate has never really been about supposed weakness in the workings of the ICC. It’s about reluctance to give up an ounce of American sovereignty to an international institution and exaggerated fears of universal jurisdiction.
#
posted 11:20 AM
It’s interesting that in two ways the U.S. has both demonstrated a “justified” fear of the court and at the same time shown that such fear is unwarranted. If the Abu Ghraib prison abuses constitute war crimes, it wouldn’t matter because Iraq isn’t a signatory to the ICC (but what if they become one after the transfer of power? Hmm…). But Afghanistan is. So what’s to stop Afghanistan from bringing a case for war crimes for say the deaths of innocent civilians or detainee abuses? The complementary provision. If the accused state makes a good faith effort to investigate the alleged crime, the court has no jurisdiction. And it seems that the U.S. has done this both in Afghanistan and Iraq with regards to detainee abuses at least.
But of course, the debate has never really been about supposed weakness in the workings of the ICC. It’s about reluctance to give up an ounce of American sovereignty to an international institution and exaggerated fears of universal jurisdiction.
<< Home