Via Opinio Juris, it appears that the Obama administration, trying its best to emulate his predecessor, is not inclined to join the international community when it comes to the International Criminal Court.
The problem, of course, is that the United States will clearly be the target of war crimes complaints by smaller countries, angry with us for playing world policeman and being on the wrong side of the conflict as far as they’re concerned. One might assume that every president, not to mention various other officials, will be under constant indictment in the ICC. Either we would subject our government to perpetual prosecution or ignore it and reduce it to a joke.
Without the United States, however, the ICC will never attain legitimacy.
Cries that the current administration is internationalist, not to mention socialist, appear to be overwrought. When it comes to the ICC, one might think that they’ve taken their talking points from Cheney and Rumsfeld. After all, we’ve got enough guns and planes that we really don’t need to beg for the approval of the rest of the international community. We’re a superpower and you’re not. You don’t get to judge us, and we don’t need to be judged by you.
Some friends of mine were strong supporters of the concept of an International Criminal Court, believing that it would provide a check on the worst extremes of power and provide a means of political stability in a militarily unstable world. They believed that until the United States recognized that, superpower or not, it had to get along with other countries in the world and recognize their sovereignty, we would remain on the path of war, where the only justification was “our way or the highway.” Might makes right isn’t a recipe for world peace.
The theory has long been interesting, but the practical concerns are certainly real. The United States certainly has some issue with respecting other nations’ sovereignty, their right to conduct their political affairs in the way they see fit even though it differs from ours, often in the extreme. For those who take comfort in knowing that our way is, by definition, the best way, and hence properly imposed on any nation with fewer weapons, the notion of sovereignty doesn’t matter a whole lot. For those who respect the right of other nations to differ with our way of doing things, then this is American jingoism at its worst and most destructive.
But even Pollyanna would have some problems putting an American president in the dock to face charges by a Somali warlord, presided over by a judge from Moravia. It’s not going to happen. And even the most ardent believer in the International Criminal Court must surely realize that Americans will never tolerate our officials, or generals, or even buck privates, being subject to judgment by outside authorities. Not as long as we have more guns and planes than anyone else.
Apparently, the Obama Administration has decided it will not seek ratification of the ICC Rome Statute. There is still no official policy, as far as I know, but this is the latest from Assistant Secretary of State for War Crimes Stephen Rapp. This is not exactly a surprise, but it shows just how far the U.S. is from the Rome Statute. If President Obama and his sort-of supermajority in Congress do not wish to join the ICC, then it is hard to imagine the U.S. joining during a future Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney administration.The ICC is one of those particularly sore subjects, which pits theory directly against reality. On the one hand, any effort to address conflict and behaviors across jurisdictional borders requires some rational overarching agreement between nations, as well as means of addressing what is determined to be a wrong, a crime. The most obvious example is war crimes.
The problem, of course, is that the United States will clearly be the target of war crimes complaints by smaller countries, angry with us for playing world policeman and being on the wrong side of the conflict as far as they’re concerned. One might assume that every president, not to mention various other officials, will be under constant indictment in the ICC. Either we would subject our government to perpetual prosecution or ignore it and reduce it to a joke.
Without the United States, however, the ICC will never attain legitimacy.
Cries that the current administration is internationalist, not to mention socialist, appear to be overwrought. When it comes to the ICC, one might think that they’ve taken their talking points from Cheney and Rumsfeld. After all, we’ve got enough guns and planes that we really don’t need to beg for the approval of the rest of the international community. We’re a superpower and you’re not. You don’t get to judge us, and we don’t need to be judged by you.
Some friends of mine were strong supporters of the concept of an International Criminal Court, believing that it would provide a check on the worst extremes of power and provide a means of political stability in a militarily unstable world. They believed that until the United States recognized that, superpower or not, it had to get along with other countries in the world and recognize their sovereignty, we would remain on the path of war, where the only justification was “our way or the highway.” Might makes right isn’t a recipe for world peace.
The theory has long been interesting, but the practical concerns are certainly real. The United States certainly has some issue with respecting other nations’ sovereignty, their right to conduct their political affairs in the way they see fit even though it differs from ours, often in the extreme. For those who take comfort in knowing that our way is, by definition, the best way, and hence properly imposed on any nation with fewer weapons, the notion of sovereignty doesn’t matter a whole lot. For those who respect the right of other nations to differ with our way of doing things, then this is American jingoism at its worst and most destructive.
But even Pollyanna would have some problems putting an American president in the dock to face charges by a Somali warlord, presided over by a judge from Moravia. It’s not going to happen. And even the most ardent believer in the International Criminal Court must surely realize that Americans will never tolerate our officials, or generals, or even buck privates, being subject to judgment by outside authorities. Not as long as we have more guns and planes than anyone else.
H/T Jonathon Adler at Volokh Conspiracy
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
A horrible decision proving that little has changed in Washington.
You characterize possible charges against the United States before an international criminal court as coming from “a Somali warlord, presided over by a judge from Moravia.” However, it is possible that some of the larger and more prosperous European republics would mount charges against the U.S. After all, aren’t there some proceedings currently underway in Spanish courts investigating some of the American shenannigans? Did not Italy convict a slew of CIA brethren and some American government officials of kidnapping? While you seem to favor the International Criminal Court over “might makes right,” you also appear to be doing a little mudslinging against it. Let’s see how it is operating among the nations that have ratified it. However powerful America may be, its wealth and power are limited, and when compared to that of the rest of the world, may indeed be overrated. It is a fatal mistake, one which this country is undoubtedly making, to overestimate one’s military advantage.
Points are best made with worst case scenarios. You’re absolutely right about overestimating ones military advantage, as well as ones relative worth in the world. Many an empire has fallen, usually under the weight of its own self-importance.