Five Things Everyone Should Know About the International Criminal Court
What was supposed to be a body with very narrow jurisdiction has been attempting to exercise increasing influence on the international stage.
Why this list matters: Last week, United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced a campaign to counter the ICC’s threats to American sovereignty. No single new development sparked this, but several aspects of how the ICC operates are cause for concern.
The United States has never ratified the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the International Criminal Court. That means that the ICC does not have jurisdiction over American citizens; however, there are advocates of legal theories that would allow the ICC to extend its jurisdiction to include them. Secretary Rubio appears to be acting now to avoid a later incident.
1. The ICC is an independent international judicial body.
In 1998, the Rome Statute was adopted by 120 nations. While it was endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly, the ICC is not a part of the U.N. or any other supranational or international body. It is governed by a quasi-legislative assembly consisting of one representative from each signatory country, the Assembly of States Party, which elects the courts judges and prosecutors.
2. The United States was an initial signatory to the Rome Statute, but the U.S. Senate never ratified the treaty.
President Bill Clinton initially signed the Rome Statute, but then decided not to submit the treaty to the Senate for advice and consent. Several criticisms of the Rome Statute, and by extension, the ICC, include differences between the rights guaranteed to criminal defendants under the U.S. Constitution and the ICC’s procedures including the right to a jury trial, protection against double jeopardy, and the possibility that an American citizen could be tried by a non-U.S. court for offenses that occurred on U.S. soil.
3. The ICC was intended to have very narrow, specific jurisdiction.
The Rome Statute limits the ICC’s jurisdiction to four crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. The Court may act only when national authorities are unwilling or genuinely unable to investigate or prosecute those offenses. Cases reach the ICC through referrals by a State Party, referrals from the U.N. Security Council, or investigations initiated by the Prosecutor. The Court, however, has recently interpreted its jurisdiction broadly, asserting authority over any person accused of qualifying crimes committed within the territory of a state party, regardless of nationality.
4. Opposition to U.S. ratification of the Rome Statute has historically been bi-partisan.
President Clinton initially signed the Rome Statute, but decided not to submit it to the U.S. Senate for ratification until the ICC was functioning and several concerns were addressed. The Bush administration “unsigned” the treaty before the Obama administration reestablished limited cooperation with the ICC, allowing the U.S. to become an observer of the court. The fundamental concerns about the court’s threats to U.S. sovereignty have never been adequately addressed for leaders of either major U.S. political party.
5. Secretary Rubio’s primary concerns about the ICC likely stem from investigations into the “Situation in Afghanistan” that included U.S. service members.
While the ICC has never indicted nor opened a formal investigation against an American citizen, its 2020 investigation into the Situation in Afghanistan included investigations into the action of members of the U.S. Armed Forces and the CIA. The fundamental concept underlying international law is consent to jurisdiction, so the U.S. was forced to object to this so it would not seem to consent by a lack of response. The current campaign is almost certainly a more robust response to this unprecedented action by the ICC.
THE BOTTOM LINE
International tribunals and organizations can exert powerful influence on global and regional dynamics, so their significance should not be underestimated. Ultimately, it is best for American interests to remain outside of the ICC, and Secretary Rubio’s strong statement on this issue is consistent with national interests.
 | A guest post by
|
Great article. We needed to know these things.
The "mother " organisation, the UN, is by now discredited and obsolete. Its poisonous extreme bias stems from its ludicrous composition and governance: one nation, one vote.
The ICC imbibes that woke insanity and moral perversion. Such as putting Sinwar and Netanyahu in the same category.
The man responsible for hunting Netanyahu , Khan, is a criminal himself. South-Africa is a ghost of what it was pre-revolution, yet found an indictment of Israel as " genocidal" a question of national urgency.
Mamdani proves that he does not belong in the USA. He got himself citizenship like so many do. It's convenient. And to him, a question of Islamic Communist mission. Only that one has to explain "Communism" to the Islamic potentate dictators. Mamdani doesn't know US laws or international agreements. Or cares. Netanyahu is none of his business, whatever one may think of the Israeli PM. Mamdani's business is NYC. But that is untrue also. All of Mamdani is a farce. As a useful idiot of Islamism, that's where his loyalty is. To force us to be parsing the ICC on account of his thoughtless whim is offensive.
If till now Mamdani was a Jew-hater and an Islamic propagandist, he has now lowered the echelon to an agitator and provocateur, wasting scarce available work time on his fanatic un-American designs.
I have never heard or seen a satisfactory definition of "genocide" that was susceptible to elastic interpretation.