The International Criminal Court and the U.S. Objections to its Establishment.

 

Gerard Horgan.

 

LA5001: Public International Law.

 

Lecturer: Dr Sean Donlan.

 

Word Count: 4832.

 

Citation Format: Chicago Style. 

 

“If the international community is to move beyond the currently fragmented assortment of jurisdictions to a coherent system of justice, a great burden falls on the shoulders of influential states to set a fitting moral example” [1]

Payam Akhava

Introduction

            The idea that those who commit atrocities ought to be punished is one that has been around for a long time.[2] War criminals have been prosecuted at least since the time of the ancient Greeks, and probably well before that. There existed the idea that there is some common denominator of behavior, even in the most extreme circumstances of brutal armed conflict.[3] Over the centuries the idea that wrongdoers should be punished developed into a concept that is enshrined in international law and is practiced daily in both the national and international courtrooms of the world. The establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) will arguably prove to be the most important of such courtrooms. The purpose of this research essay is to examine the emergence, composition and purpose of the ICC and the United States (U.S.) objections to its establishment.

The historical emergence of the ICC is briefly outlined. This includes its development from a concept to a practical reality. In particular, the important precedents of the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals as well as the ad hoc tribunals established to investigate and prosecute those responsible for crimes committed in Yugoslavia and Rwanda will be highlighted.

From this juncture, the ICC is dealt with in terms of its structure, functions and composition. The court’s jurisdiction over the most serious international crimes such as the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes come in for scrutiny.

The essay analyses the objections of the U.S. to the ICC. These include the fear that U.S. service personnel and possibly even the President of the United States could be brought before a court, to face war crime charges. The Bush Administration fears that the court could be manipulated by rogue states who would use it to undermine the U.S. It is feared that the ICC would be reduced to something akin to the show trials, of the notorious Volksgericht (People’s Court), which took place in Nazi Germany.[4]  Not surprisingly for many on Capitol Hill and in the Pentagon this is simply unacceptable.

The U.S. government fears that the court could diminish U.S. sovereignty and undermine its judicial system. Others, within the Bush Administration, purport that the ICC actually contradicts the founding principles of the American Republic. They point to the fact that the Rome Treaty, which embodies the Statute, makes no allowance for trial by jury. As a result, many within the U.S. government view the court as unconstitutional.

 In the interest of balance and analysis; the arguments in support of the ICC are also outlined. Proponents of the ICC maintain that it is designed to complement national judicial systems and not to override them, except in cases where a country is deemed to be either unwilling or unable to pursue an investigation. Given the strength and transparency of the U.S. judicial system, it appears very remote that any American citizen, military or otherwise, would ever appear before the ICC. Furthermore, the drafting of the Rome Treaty was heavily influenced by American legal practices so much so that it is regarded as resembling the U.S. Constitution, and not contradicting it.

Moreover, some commentators argue that the U.S. decision to oppose the establishment of the ICC does more harm than good. They believe that the Bush Administration’s belligerent stance of to the nascent court sends a signal to other states that they can effectively ‘Unsign’ any international treaty when it suits them. It is believed that the U.S. would best serve its interests by being a party to the ICC, as opposed to “declaring war on the treaty or just monitoring further talks with further indifference, which appears to be the Bush Administration’s chosen course”[5]. The essay concludes with the argument that the fears and objections that the U.S. has with the ICC are both unfounded and overblown.

 

The Emergence of the ICC: A Brief Historical Introduction

The emergence and establishment of the ICC represents a giant step towards the universal human rights and the rule of law. With the court in place, individuals who perpetrate crimes against humanity, war crimes and/or genocide will finally be brought to justice. William Pace; Convener of the NGO Coalition for the ICC stated:

The establishment of the International Criminal Court has been declared the most significant advance in international law since the founding of the UN. This court is capable of ending an era of impunity and is a symbol of the triumph of law over violence and brutality.[6]

 

The idea of an ICC is not a new one. In fact, the proposal of just such an institution can be traced to Gustav Moynier, one of the founders of the International Committee of the Red Cross, who advocated a permanent court in 1872. However, his proposal was far before its time.[7] In 1919, a commission, on the Responsibility of the Authors of War and on the Enforcement of Penalties, concluded that an ICC should be established “to punish those, without distinction of rank including Chiefs of State, who have been guilty of offences against the laws and customs of war or laws of humanity”[8].

             It was not until after the Second World War that the political will needed to establish such an institution gathered real momentum. The Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals, which did not constitute international courts in the strict sense as they only focused on prosecuting those alleged to have committed crimes during the war, were important precedents. On August 8^th 1945, the Nuremberg Tribunal was given jurisdiction over war crimes and crimes against humanity. On foot of these tribunals the UN General Assembly on December 9^th 1948, adopted the ‘Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide’, which allowed for individuals accused of genocide to be tried “by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction.”[9]

            On December 12^th 1950, the General Assembly appointed seventeen experts to prepare a draft statute for an international criminal court. Their efforts proved largely in vain due to the failure to agree a definition of the crime of aggression and to a larger extent on the onset of the Cold War. Political divisions deepened, effectively stopping the creation of an international court dead in its tracks.

 It was not until nearly forty years later that the attempts to create an ICC resurfaced when in 1989, Trinidad and Tobago raised the issue once more. In 1992, the General Assembly asked the International Law Commission (ILC) to draft a statute for an ICC, which it produced two years later. It was around this time that the emergence of a number of internecine conflicts began to focus the world’s attention on the need for an international court to try individuals suspected of serious human rights violations.

The brutal nature of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia and later in Rwanda led the UN, with considerable impetus from the Clinton Administration, to establish international tribunals. Both the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ITFY), and the International Tribunal for Rwanda (ITFR) claimed jurisdiction over the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions 1949 and violations of the Laws and Customs of War.

            In 1996, the General Assembly set the summer of 1998 as the date for a diplomatic conference to discuss the draft statute for the ICC. From June 15^th to July 17^th intricate negotiations between 162 nations in six official languages culminated in the adoption of the Rome Statute of the ICC. On April 11^th 2002, sixty countries ratified the Rome Treaty, bringing the Statute into force and the ICC into being. The agreement at Rome made history by creating the first ever “treaty based international criminal court, established to promote the rule of law and ensure the gravest international crimes do not go unpunished.”[10]

As of July 1^st 2002, the ICC exercised permanent jurisdiction over the most serious breaches of international humanitarian and human rights law.  From its initial proposal back in 1872 to its establishment in 2002, the ICC has endured a prolonged struggle to get itself established. It has finally become a reality. But what does that reality entail?

 

Composition

The ICC is intended to be a permanent and independent institution, which will prosecute individuals who are deemed to have committed serious crimes of international concern. This differs from its sister court, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which is court concerned with settling disputes between states.[11]

The seat of the court shall be based at Alexanderkazerne, the Hague. The ICC has international legal personality and is made up of the Presidency, Chambers, the Investigatory and Office of the Prosecutor and the Registry. The Office of the Prosecutor allows for an independent prosecutor, who has the power to initiate an investigation into any alleged crimes that come within the Office’s legal remit. The ICC will rely on national police forces in individual countries when it comes to apprehending an accused person.

The judiciary of the court is comprised of three divisions, the Appeals division, the Trial division and the Pre-Trial division. The eighteen judges who will serve in these divisions will be persons of high moral character, impartiality and integrity and there is a requirement that the appointment of judges reflects a fair balance of geographic regions, gender and principal legal systems of the world.

           

Jurisdiction

 The ICC claims jurisdiction over the most serious crimes of concern to the international community.[12] These include, firstly, the crime of genocide, which is defined in the Statute as “acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, radical or religious group”[13]. Secondly, crimes against humanity, which include “murder, extermination, deportation or forcible transfer of populations, rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced disappearance of persons and persecution against any identifiable group or collectively on political, racial, national ethnical, religious, or other grounds”[14].

 The third crime that comes under the jurisdiction of the court is war crimes. These include “grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, and includes torture or inhuman treatment which cover biological experiments, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity, taking of hostages and conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen into armed forces or groups”[15]. Interestingly, war crimes can constitute a single act. There is a fourth area namely the crime of aggression. This subject is proving to be more problematic, so the court will exercise its jurisdiction once a proper definition is agreed upon.

The court claims jurisdiction over any acts committed on the territory of a ratifying state or by citizens of those states. Citizens of countries that have not ratified the Rome Treaty could be charged for acts that happened in a ratifying country. Each state that signs and ratifies the treaty relinquishes certain state powers and agrees to abide by the decisions of the court. This can result, although not always, in a state holding a referendum in order to incorporate the ICC into a states constitution, Ireland being a case in point.

Heads of state and military leaders are subject to the jurisdiction of the court. Signatory nations are obliged to surrender their own citizens if charged. The court cannot bring charges retroactively; it can only try crimes that occur after the jurisdiction of the court has been established. The maximum specified period of imprisonment that can be imposed by the court is thirty years. However, there is a proviso that imprisonment for life can be imposed if circumstances justify it. Punishment does not include the death penalty while sentences are to be served in countries that have indicated their willingness to accept sentenced persons.

            With regard to the law, the court applies its Statute, applicable treaties and the principles and rules of general international law and any rule of national law. The procedural provisions are, “a compromise reflecting a mix of continental and common law justice systems.”[16] Remaining details are covered in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence that must be adopted by the Assembly of State Parties, which is a body, composed of all parties to the Statute. The court pays particular attention to victim’s needs; victims may address the ICC and obtain restitution and counseling. This is due in part to the experiences of the Yugoslav and Rwanda war crimes tribunals.

 

Objectors to the ICC and U.S. attempts to undermine it

The establishment of the ICC was received with widespread support and enthusiasm. However, a number of states objected to its creation these included: Afghanistan, Algeria, China, Cuba, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Qatar, Yemen and the United States. Of all these countries it is probably the U.S. that stands out the most. Opponents to the court in the Bush Administration remained unmoved, while proponents of it, were and still are, incredulous. The U.S. position raises a number of questions.  Why would a country, like the U.S., which purports to represent democracy and universal equality and justice, place itself among such a disparate group of countries?  Why does the U.S. oppose an international institution that seeks to spread justice and accountability around the world? In order to ascertain some qualitative answer, an examination of the Bush Administration’s objections is necessitated.

It didn’t take long for the international community to realize that the ICC was out of favor in Washington. From very early on, the Bush Administration sought to undermine the ICC in an attempt to prevent it from fulfilling its terms of reference, thus rendering it ineffectual. The Administration, under pressure from Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon and from Senators such as Jesse Helms, introduced (under the rather misleading title), the American Serviceman’s Protection Act (2002). The American Serviceman’s Protection Act (ASPA) limited:

U.S. cooperation with the ICC, restricts U.S. participation in UN peacekeeping missions, prohibits military assistance to countries that ratify the ICC Statute and authorizes the President to use all means necessary to free from captivity any U.S. or allied personnel held by or on behalf of the ICC[17]

 

 Additionally, a joint session of the House of Representatives and the Senate approved a defense budget, which denied funds from the U.S. Department of Defense that might be destined to the ICC. Furthermore, it is alleged that the U.S. threatened Third World countries with cutting off their aid if they supported the Rome Treaty.

 

The ICC and the problem of a ‘politicised’ court

            The reasons for the Bush Administration’s bellicose stance are both varied and complex. One of the principle arguments put forward in objection to the ICC is the fear that U.S. citizens and in particular, their military personnel, especially those participating in multinational peacekeeping missions might be subject to prosecutions in a ‘politicized’ court. It was felt across a broad spectrum that President Bush was too inward looking and unilateralist in philosophy to appreciate the benefits of the ICC. As one commentator noted, “President Bush doesn’t share the vision for international justice introduced by President Wilson. He views any international war crime court as a threat to America’s sovereignty and soldiers.”[18]The image of U.S. servicemen and women being hauled before a court outside of direct U.S. control is a fear that haunts those both in the White House and the Pentagon.

 The fear that the ICC could be perverted by rogue states seeking to undermine the U.S. is simply too great a risk. Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, in speech and thought embodied the fear that the ICC is open to exploitation as a tool for politically motivated attacks by rogue states. As a consequence, the U.S. government fears that the ICC could limit the ability of the U.S. to involve itself in humanitarian or peacekeeping operations or even to defend its interests. David Scheffer, Ambassador at large for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Head of the U.S. delegation to the Rome Conference, stated:

the Treaty purports to establish an arrangement whereby U.S. forces could conceivably be prosecuted by the international court even if the U.S. has not agreed to be bound by the treaty. Not only is this contrary to the most fundamental principles of treaty law, it could inhibit the ability of the U.S. to use its military to meet alliance agreements[19]

 

However, supporters of the ICC argue vehemently against these assertions.  Human Rights Watch (HRW) points out: “it is common practice for a government to prosecute a foreign national without first seeking permission of the foreigners government. The jurisdiction of the ICC amounts to no more that a delegation of this widely accepted power.”[20] Additionally, the concept of ‘complementarity’, is sufficient enough to safeguard against this ever happening. Put succinctly, ‘complementarity’ essentially means that the ICC is designed to complement and not replace or undermine national judicial systems. The ICC is required to exercise jurisdiction where national courts are or unwilling or unable to bring accused persons to trial.                        

Unwillingness requires “evidence that the decision not to begin proceedings was made for the purpose of shielding the person concerned from criminal responsibility, that there was an unjustifiable delay or that the proceedings were or are not being conducted impartially. Inability on the other hand refers to a total or substantive collapse or unavailability of the national judicial system.”[21]Given the strength and transparency of the U.S. judicial system, it seems unlikely that any citizen would ever face prosecution in the ICC. The Irish Ambassador to the Security Council, Richard Ryan echoed this view in the UN Security Council, “while we understand the concerns of the U.S., we do not feel that they are well founded. We consider that the Rome Statute of the ICC already contains adequate safeguards against politically inspired investigations or prosecutions before the Court”[22].

The principle of universal jurisdiction is one that has been around for some time, and is the foundation upon which the ICC is built on. Under “international law, there are certain crimes which are regarded as so destructive of the international order that any state may exercise jurisdiction in respect of them. This is a jurisdiction which exists irrespective of where the act constituting the crime takes place and the nationality of the person committing it.”[23] The U.S. also has a number of extradition agreements. American citizens have been subject to such agreements for years, in fact extradition has been common practice since the foundation of the U.S. Moreover, U.S. military personnel have, when necessary, been subject to U.S. military justice. In fact, just recently a sergeant in the U.S. Army, who was part of the force that intervened in the Balkans, was given life for the rape and murder of a woman in Kosovo.

 

The ICC and Diminished U.S. Sovereignty

            Many critics within the Bush Administration argue that the ICC undermines and threatens U.S. sovereignty. Some view the ICC as an illegal and illegitimate institution that violates the principles of self-government and popular sovereignty and the accepted norms of international law. It is argued that the ICC would determine “what is and what is not an effective trial, it will exercise a kind of judicial review power over national criminal justice thus bestowing it with de facto judicial oversight.”[24]

 In particular, the Office of the Prosecutor has come under especially harsh criticism. The U.S. government fears that this office enables an unelected official to pursue a vendetta style prosecution, which further undermines the decision-making ability of U.S. courts. Donald Rumsfeld stated “the treaty would require the U.S. to cede some of its sovereignty to a international prosecutor who would be answerable to no one and could initiate capricious prosecutions of military officials and officers”[25]. Dixon in ‘International Law’ defines sovereignty as denoting, “full and unchallengeable power over a piece of territory and all the persons from time to time therein”[26].  Does, therefore, the existence and powers of the ICC challenge U.S. hegemony in its own land? Does it undermine the U.S. judiciary? Does ratification of the Rome Treaty automatically necessitate the diminishing of U.S. sovereignty?

            The Rome Treaty, and the powers it bestows on the ICC, as mentioned earlier, is designed to complement the judicial system of its signatory states and not to supplant them. Additionally, the fears associated with the Office of the Independent Prosecutor are unwarranted. The prosecutor would be required to defer to any U.S. investigation and respect any U.S. decision not to proceed to prosecution unless either the Pre-Trial Chamber or the UN Security Council ordered one. This seems unlikely given the strength and transparency of the U.S. judicial system and the power of the U.S. veto in the UN system. Moreover, the prosecutor will have far less authority than the typical county prosecutor or district attorney in the U.S. and less powerthan the international prosecutor for the ad hoc tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda.[27]

This argument is compounded by Sandar Jamison, she argues that nations must be prepared to cede some of their traditional sovereignty in pursuit of a greater good, she states, “the absolutist doctrine that a state is supreme in its own authority and need not take into the account the affairs of other nations is no longer tenable.”[28]  Dixon points out “international law recognizes that individuals may fall within its jurisdiction, it is an acknowledgement that the state is no longer the supreme, ungovernable entity”[29].

The claim by the U.S. government that the ICC diminishes U.S. sovereignty seem hypocritical when seen in light of international events such as intervention in Kosovo, the bombing of Serbia, the invasion of Afghanistan, the denunciation of war crimes in Yugoslavia and Rwanda as well as the numerous examples of American intervention in Latin America, (too many to mention here). Moreover, it appears that “when it comes to globalization Bush is willing to subordinate U.S. sovereignty to multinational corporations”[30]. The U.S. government is using the idea of diminished sovereignty to try and justify its attempts to intricate itself from supporting an institution that is outside of its direct control. The U.S. support for the ICC evaporated after other countries refused to tie the court’s power to the veto of the UN Security Council, which would effectively have made the ICC a tool of the ‘big’ five.[31]

 

The ICC and the U.S. Constitution

Many of the ICC’s detractors, within the U.S. government, maintain that the Rome Treaty is unconstitutional and that it is fundamentally inconsistent with American tradition and law.[32] They maintains that the ICC would “ ‘give effect’ to international law and provisions contrary to the Bill of Rights, as a result any ICC judgment against an American is not likely to stand a constitutional challenge.”[33] Opponents to the ICC point to the fact that the treaty would subject individual Americans to trial and punishment in an extra-constitutional court without U.S. constitutional guarantees such as the right to trial by jury.

 The Bush Administration argues that those brought before the ICC will face an ‘inquisitorial’ type system where guilt is determined by a group of judges and where there is no right to appeal beyond the ICC. Additionally, the 5^th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states, “no person shall be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life and limb”[34]. However, under the ICC system the court and in particular, the ICC prosecutor can appeal a verdict of acquittal. This means that decisions made in a U.S. court can be overruled; thus undermining both the concept of ‘double jeopardy’ and the U.S. Constitution.

 Casey and Rivkin state “since the guarantees of the Bill of Rights would not be available in the ICC the U.S. could not participate in nor facilitate any such court” [35]. Thomas Jefferson himself defended the supremacy of the constitution over treaties when he wrote; “our particular security is in the possession of a written constitution. Let us not make it a blank piece of paper. I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty making power as boundless. If it is we have no Constitution”[36].

An analysis of the Rome Treaty indicates that there is little substance to the argument that the ICC threatens or undermines the U.S. Constitution. In many ways the Rome Treaty was shaped by American legal minds prompting some observers to say that it should have come with a ‘Made in America’ stamp. The U.S. was instrumental in shaping the ICC. American practices have had a disproportionate influence on the Court’s rules, procedures and substance. Nations eager to have the U.S. on board went out of their way to accommodate many U.S. proposals. The Statute, if anything, mirrors the U.S. Constitution; a comparison of the two reveals this to be so. Moreover, U.S. military courts make no allowance for trial by jury, while determination of guilt or innocence rests with the presiding judge. In fact, the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the U.S. Bill of Rights exclude U.S. service personnel of these particular rights.[37]

 

Conclusion

To conclude, President Bush’s rolling back of the Rome Treaty, which has been termed as the ‘Unsigning’, is something that no country has ever done in the history of the UN. The action has strained U.S. relations with its allies, all of whom have signed the treaty. George Bush’s ‘Unsigning’ of the treaty also sets a dangerous precedent. Other countries, including those ‘rogue states’, which Bush likes to refer to, might now follow suit and ‘unsign’ treaties, which they do not agree with. It also undermines the actions of future presidents.

President Bush’s recent attempts to get immunity for U.S. citizens under so-called ‘Article 98 Agreements’, runs contrary to the Statute and to international treaty law. Article 27 of the Statute states “no one is immune for crimes under international law”[38] while Article 27(1), states: “shall apply equally to all persons without any distinction….”[39]. Such immunity agreements could lead to the development of a two-tier rule of law, one for the U.S. and one for the rest of the world. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states: “ A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith and in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in light of its object and purpose”[40]. U.S. immunity agreements effectively contravene this.  Furthermore, states that uphold such agreements could be in contravention of their obligations under the Geneva and Genocide Conventions, which enshrine the legal principle of aut dedere aut judicare – the responsibility of states either to prosecute such individuals or to extradite them to an appropriate jurisdiction.[41]

 It would appear that the U.S. objections to the ICC are both unfounded and overblown. The U.S. government’s decision to go against the ICC can only be seen as an example of: “go it alone arrogance”[42]. From Kyoto, to landmine agreements, to small arms trading to the ICC, the U.S. government appears determined to cut its own path regardless of what the rest of the international community thinks or counsels. Such unilateral action can only do more harm than good especially in relation to the annoyance US actions has caused its allies. This is especially pertinent in relation to the position of the U.S. in the current global political climate.

The Bush Administration’s efforts to secure a blanket type immunity for its citizens, represents an attempt by the ‘world’s greatest nation’ to place itself truly above all others. This is simply unacceptable. To quote one commentator “surely we have all learned the fundamental rule of this bloodiest of centuries which is that impunity from prosecution for grievous crimes must end”[43].  The establishment of the ICC is important not only for states but for humanity as a whole. Individual states such as the U.S. should put it before their own national self-interests. Ironically, the U.S. would probably serve its interests more by being a party to the ICC as opposed to its current stance as a disgruntled detractor.

The Bush Administration’s belligerence sets a bad precedent, which undermines the U.S. and erodes its standing in the world. David Scheffer put it succinctly:

If we cannot stand for the proposition that heinous crimes against humanity will be answered and build the institutions to do the job in a very complex world, then our leadership in prompting the rule of law abroad will decline rapidly and the value of our own principles will erode[44]

 

The erosion of such principles serves only to weaken the U.S. while strengthening its enemies. The U.S. government should perceive the ICC as an added weapon in democracies armament against international terrorism and individuals who commit acts of genocide and war crimes. In the words of Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the UN: “The establishment of the ICC is still a gift of hope to future generations, and a giant step forward in the march towards universal human rights and the rule of law”[45]. Any prolonged boycott of the ICC by the U.S. would be a travesty for both international law and the international community. The Bush Administration’s fears in relation to the ICC are overblown and unfounded. The sooner it comes to realize this, the sooner we can live in a more just and peaceful world.

 

 

Bibliography

 

 

Books

 

• Dixon, Martin. International Law, 4^th ed. London: Blackstone Press, 2002.

 

• Schabas, David. An introduction to the International Criminal Court. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

 

• Steiner, Henry J. International human rights in context: law, politics, morals.  2^nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

 

·        Sewell, Sarah B. and Carl Kaysen, eds., The United States and the International Criminal Court: national security and international law. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Little Publishers, 2000.

 

Law Reviews

 

• Akhava, Payam. “Beyond Impunity: Can International Criminal Justice Prevent Future Atrocities?” American Journal of International Law 95, (Jan 2001): 7-31.

 

• Leigh, Monroe. “The United States and the Statute of Rome.” American Journal of International Law 95, (Jan, 2000): 124-131.

 

• Murphy, Raymond. “The Permanent International Criminal Court – Solving the missing link in the International Legal System?,” Irish Law Times 20 (2000): 319-323.

·        Scheffer, David J. “A negotiator’s perspective on the International Criminal Court (Fourteenth Waldemar A. Solf Lecture in International Law). ” Military Law Review 167, (March 2001): 1-19.

·        Stoelting, David, Jennifer Schense, and John L.Washburn. “The United States and the International Criminal Court.” International Lawyer 35, (Summer, 2001): 614-622.

 

Newspaper Articles

 

• Anonymous, no author given: “U.S. lets overblown fears set back world court plans.” U.S.A Today, 15 July 2002.

 

·        Lewis, Neil A. “U.S. Rejects All Support for New Court on Atrocities.” New York Times, 7 May 2002.

 

·        Leopold, Evelyn.“Canada Slams U.S. bid to dodge court.” Toronto Star, 11 July 2002, A23.

 

Magazine Articles

 

·        Moberg, David. “Courting Disaster.” These Times magazine, 10 June, 2002.

 

·        Lamont, Beth. “Establishing an International Criminal Court.” The Humanist Magazine, November 1998.

 

Internet Articles

 

• Anonymous, no author given: “Bush Administration Demands Immunity Agreement.” Washington Working Group for the ICC.2001.

< http://www.wfa.org/issues/wicc/article98/article98home.html >

(13/10/2002).

 

·        Anonymous, no author given: “A Selective U.S. Vision of Justice,” Human Rights Watch (World Report). 2000. < http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/intro/intro18.html> (17/10/2002).

 

·        Anonymous, no author given: “CICC Memo,” Non-governmental Coalition for the ICC. 23 August, 2002. <htttp://www.iccnow.org/html/ciccart98memo20020823.pdf> (21/10/2002).

 

·        Anonymous, no author given:“Canada and the ICC,” Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, 2002. <http://209.217.98.79/english/02_history_e/02_history_e.htm > (13/10/2002).

 

·        Casey, Lee A. and David Rivkin Jnr., “The ICC v the American People,” The Heritage Foundation Policy Research and Analysis , 5 February 1999 < http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/BG1249.cfm> (13/10/2002).

 

·        “Statement by Ambassador Richard Ryan in the Security Council on Bosnia and Herzegovina.” Washington group on the ICC. 2002. <htpp://www.wfa.org/issues/wicc/insc1422/un-ireland.html>

(13/10/2002).

 

·        Dempsey, Gary T. “Reasonable Doubt: The Case against the ICC.” Cato Poilcy Analysis, 16 July 1998.

<http: // www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-311.html> (21/10/2002).

 

Official Documents

 

·        The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.  UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9

<http//: www.icc.int/icc-origin-page.html>

(21/10/2002).

 

·        UN Press Release. L/ROM/23. 18 July,1998. <http://www.un.org/icc/pressrel/lrom23.htm>(14/10/2002).