The International Criminal Court – Does the US Need to be Involved?
09 May, 2002 · 748
Matthew Angus explores the effectiveness of the ICC without the US and is apprehensive that “economics and international relations might take precedence over the rule of law”
A permanent International Criminal Court (ICC) came into being on 18 April 2002 . Countries like
Cambodia
,
Ireland
and
Mongolia
have ratified the Rome Statute paving the way for it to become a reality. According to the BBC, the United Nations expects the ICC to be up and running by 2003. The court will be charged with prosecuting cases of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. However, there are grave concerns about how effective the ICC will be.
US
is concerned that its citizens may be charged with an offence in relation to any military operations it may undertake abroad. But, is the involvement of the
US
really necessary? Two questions must be asked. First, if a number of countries that have ratified the treaty decide that certain
US
citizens may be guilty of a war crime or a crime against humanity, what is there to stop those countries from arresting US suspects if they happen to land upon treaty territory, just as the
United Kingdom
arrested General Pinochet? Secondly, if the US is unwilling to sign up for fear of its citizens being prosecuted, what is it planning to do around the world in future in regard to other war criminals?
US
Chief of Staff knowingly sanctions an act or omission that raises a suspicion in the minds of other countries that a war crime has been committed. This Chief of Staff is then asked to travel to
Europe
on official business. Can he or she be arrested and charged?
US
. As recent ‘spats’ with the European Union and the US in the World Trade Organisation have shown, the US is capable of imposing targeted sanctions to get its own way. Also, with many countries relying on US for the production of goods, the potential to cause real harm to the European country would be a distinct possibility. Secondly, the leaders of the European country would have to consider their own domestic political situation. If sanctions were imposed, there would probably be a drop in the standard of living of its citizens or subjects. Depending on the views of the electorate, this might amount to political suicide for the ruling party of the European country. Thirdly, the country would also have to consider how allies of the
US
might treat it. It would run the risk of souring relations with pro-US countries; conceivably, the
US
could also apply pressure on those allies to influence the behaviour of the European country that had the temerity to arrest its Chief of Staff.
US
’s failure to ratify the Rome Statute is that it clearly believes there may be a risk of its citizens being prosecuted. The natural inference to be drawn from this stance is that the
US
feels there is a real risk that its future military actions may comprise crimes against humanity, genocide or war crimes. Adherence to the principles of democracy is fundamental to good governance; whether the
US
is prepared to be held accountable on the basis of democratic principles now becomes the issue.
While there are many arguments against the court working effectively at a practical level, such as the standard of proof and quality of evidence required to safely convict, say, a war criminal, one of the main arguments laid against the ICC is that it will not be able to operate effectively without the involvement of the US.
Apparently, the
Let’s assume for the moment that the
Legally the answer must be “yes”. However, what would happen in practice? Arguably, the European country responsible for arresting the Chief of Staff would weigh up the pros and cons before instructing its police force to arrest, and, for a number of reasons, probably decide that arresting this person would be a bad idea. First, it would consider the possible economic ramifications of annoying the
Therefore, it is atleast arguable that economics and international relations might take precedence over the rule of law, even in the case of laws relating to war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. It is ironical that on domestic level, concepts such as the rule of law are fundamental to the orderly organisation of society, but at the international level, anarchy and the law of the jungle applies.
The other more worrying aspect of the
If the majority of the countries around the world believe that war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity are a bad thing, then why should they back down? The answer appears to be that it will require a giant leap of faith by their leaders, plus solid support of their electorates, for them to find the requisite political will. If people around the world, through their democratically elected leaders, are prepared to place principles above pecuniary advantage, even for a short period of time, the US would get sidelined and feel awkward about being seen as a country that supports war criminals, or carry on regardless. Either way, if true democracy is to be achieved in the world, then a stand will have to be taken at some point.