LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT (ICC)
This brief discusses and analyzes the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute), the international treaty providing for the creation of an international criminal court (ICC) for the prosecution, trial and sentencing of individuals found guilty of enumerated serious international crimes and its implications for international law and the world order. In that context it examines the position of the United States with respect to the ICC.
The ICC came about because of a consensus among most countries in the world that there was a need for a permanent international tribunal to deal with serious international crimes, particularly those involving atrocities and other human rights abuses. Its formation culminates an effort which is nearly a century old. Most nations agree that although temporary, ad hoc international criminal tribunals have served their purpose, too many perpetrators of such crimes have escaped punishment and that a permanent tribunal is needed to deter future crimes of this nature and to generate consistent and fair interpretations of governing international law. An example of confusing and inconsistent municipal court actions are the ultimately unsuccessful efforts by human rights groups in Spanish and British courts to obtain the extradition of General Augusto Pinochet for alleged human rights crimes in Chile. The United States government, however, presently disagrees. There is virtually no likelihood the United States will ratify the Rome Statute so long as the administration of President George Bush remains in power. This is a pity since the United States has long been a champion of the world rule of law. Its opposition to the ICC is clothed in national and international legal arguments but is in fact a reflection of America's unique posture as the world's only superpower and the distrust expressed by the contempor...