جميع الأراء المنشورة تعبر عن رأي كتّابها ولا تعبر بالضرورة عن رأي مركز غزة للدراسات والاستراتيجيات

International Criminal Court (ICC) between international legality and the U.S. hegemony

International Criminal Court (ICC) between international legality and the U.S. hegemony
طباعة تكبير الخط تصغير الخط

Since The U.S. opposing the ICC from the beginning, surprising and disappointing many people. Human rights organizations and social justice groups around the world, and from within the US, were very critical of the US. stance given its dominance in world affairs.

The U.S. did indeed signed up to the ICC just before the December 2000 deadline to ensure that it would be a State Party that could participate in decision-making about how the Court works. However,

·        By May 2002, the Bush Administration unsigned the Rome Satute.

·        The U.S. threatened to use military force if US. nationals were held at the Hague

·        The U.S. continues to pressure many countries to sign agreements not to surrender US. citizens to the ICC.

But why would a country, often vocal in the area of human rights, and often amongst the first to promote human rights as a global issue in the past refuse to sign up to an international law and institution designed to protect human rights?

At the beginning of May, 2002, the Bush Administration announced that it had resolved to unsign the Rome Statute creating the International Criminal Court (ICC). The U.S. has long been afraid of an international body having jurisdiction over the United States and that cases will be brought against U.S. civilian and military authorities on political grounds.

However, as noted in the introduction section on this site, the ICC would not undermine the sovereignty of nations because it would function only where states are unable or unwilling to. The U.S., had it remained signed up, would have been able to prosecute its own members, if needed, itself.

Responding to that annoucement, Washington D.C-based Center for Defense Information (CDI) also pointed out that the concerns of the U.S. are not justified. In addition, CDI noted that this was also another example of the U.S. dropping out of an international treaty, thus raising a number of concerns