You Decide
SHOULD AMERICA JOIN THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT?
Foreign policy presents Americans with a fundamental choice:
Should America act alone or cooperate with other nations? Uni-
lateral action means that American policy makers can act to
further America’s self-interest—as these individuals defi ne it,
of course. The advantage of multilateral action is that working
with other nations may allow the United States to achieve goals
that would be unattainable by acting alone. However, multi-
lateral action may sometimes produce policies that are not
ideal, or even acceptable, to the United States.
As an example, consider the International Criminal Court
(ICC), an agency within the United Nations that was set up in
2002 to prosecute cases of genocide, war crimes, and crimes
against humanity.a Before the ICC was established, new courts
had to be created every time someone was tried for such
crimes, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the
Former Yugoslavia, which prosecuted more than 100 political
leaders, military leaders, and soldiers. The ICC was created as
a permanent international body that would adjudicate these
high-profi le, international cases.
As of July 2012, over 120 nations have ratifi ed the ICC treaty,
which essentially gives the ICC jurisdiction over their citizens.b
These nations include U.S. allies Great Britain, France, and
Germany. However, the United States has not ratifi ed the treaty,
nor have allies Israel and Japan. Others who have not ratifi ed
include China and Russia.
The United States signed the ICC treaty during Presi-
dent Clinton’s administration, but the treaty was never
sent to the Senate for a ratification vote. (Clinton expressed
doubts about the treaty and faced a Senate in which support
for the treaty was weak.) Clinton’s successor, George W.
Bush, nullified the signature and declared that the United
States would not allow its citizens to be prosecuted by the
ICC. Bush administration officials even threatened to with-
hold U.S. forces from UN peacekeeping missions unless they
were granted full immunity from ICC prosecution.c As of late
2012, this policy remains in place under President Obama,
although the United States has sent observers to monitor
ICC proceedings.d
U.S. criticism of the ICC centers on whether defendants
are given full due process rights as they are in American
courts, such as the right to see the evidence against them
and protection against self-incrimination.e However, an anal-
ysis by the group Human Rights Watch, which supports the
ICC, argued that ICC procedures are similar to those in U.S.
courts.f
These debates miss a deeper concern. By joining the ICC,
the United States would lose the ability to protect its citizens
from prosecution by this court. In theory, the ICC could pros-
ecute American forces and military leaders for such actions as
the invasion and occupation of Iraq or the interrogation tech-
niques used against terror suspects in the detention facility
at Guantánamo Bay. These concerns are not merely abstract.
British soldiers have been prosecuted and convicted by the ICC
for abuse of prisoners in Iraq.g And American military lawyers
expressed concerns that interrogation methods that were com-
monly used by American forces would put these individuals at
risk of ICC prosecution.h
The stakes are high on both sides of the question. If the United
States joins the ICC, it will pressure other holdout nations to do
so, thus increasing the Court’s value as a potential deterrent
to future cases of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war
crimes. But joining the ICC would also put American soldiers
and statesmen at risk of prosecution. What would you decide?The International Criminal Court, shown here during a meeting,
was set up to allow the prosecution of terrorists and international
war criminals, such as individuals involved in genocide. The United
States, whose empty seat at the Court is shown here, has refused to
join the organization, partly due to concerns that American troops
might be tried for their actions during armed confl icts.482 CHAPTER 17|FOREIGN POLICY
Critical Thinking Questions
- The discussion gives several reasons why U.S.
leaders might be reluctant to join the ICC. Besides
the argument about encouraging holdouts, what
are the advantages of joining this organization? - When might civilian and military leaders disagree
about the decision to join the ICC? Why might
military leaders favor joining the organization?