Stretegic Implications of U.S. Non-Support for the International Criminal Court.
Abstract
This paper examines the strategic implications affecting United States interests assuming the proposed International Criminal Court (ICC) will begin operation. The U.S. objected to several Court provisions. Of primary concern is the limited UN Security Council role in deciding appropriate prosecutions. Second, the Court Prosecutor has virtually independent power. Third, the Crime of Aggression remains undefined. Fourth, the jurisdictional framework subjects troops of non-signatory nations, like the U.S., to prosecution in certain circumstances. The U.S. will continue to take action to protect its vital and important interests regardless of the Court's existence. However, it may hesitate to participate in humanitarian or peacekeeping operations because of potential exposure for its troops to unwarranted prosecutions. Unfortunately, without strong U.S. and UN Security Council backing, the Court will not be the potent international force sought by the many countries and humanitarian organizations advocating its creation. The U.S. will continue to support the rule of law and trial of human rights violators. It will also continue to protect its most important concerns and those of its closest allies. It may, however, weigh the potential for politically motivated prosecutions as too steep a price to pay for involvement in certain humanitarian type activities.
Document Details
- Document Type
- Technical Report
- Publication Date
- Mar 31, 1999
- Accession Number
- ADA364130
Entities
People
- Daniel V. Wright
Organizations
- United States Army War College