|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| NYU-A5-SM ����������������������� ����������� Assignment #5����������� ����������� ����������� Soe Myint | |||||||||||||||||
| US Ratification of the | |||||||||||||||||
| International Criminal Court | |||||||||||||||||
| This is an executive summary of some arguments for or against US ratification of the International Criminal Court (ICC).� A brief introduction and current status of ICC was included before examining arguments related with US ratification of the ICC. | |||||||||||||||||
| Current Status of ICC | |||||||||||||||||
| The International Criminal Court, envisaged by the Nuremberg trials, was intended to be a permanent court with the power to investigate and bring to justice individuals who commit the most serious crimes of concern to the international community, such as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.� Although the ICC had its origin in World War II, it was only in 1992 that the General Assembly had directed the International Law Commission to elaborate a draft statute for an ICC.� The Security Council's establishment of the criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia in 1993 and for Rwanda in 1994 accelerated the process.� The drafted statute consisted of thirteen parts and 116 articles that generated controversies on more than 1,500 matters.� The adoption of the statute, therefore, was a major accomplishment.� Up to the UN Millennium Summit (September 2000), 112 states had signed the Rome Statue and 20 had ratified it, eight of them during the UN Millennium Summit.� The statute requires 60 ratifications to come into force.1 | |||||||||||||||||
| Current US Signature Status | |||||||||||||||||
| The US has not signed the Rome Statute. The constitution of the United States requires that the President propose ratification of a treaty to the Senate and obtain its 'advice and consent' to this proposal.� The Senate must give approval by 2/3 votes.� Once granted, the President may then complete the act of ratification. | |||||||||||||||||
| Arguments against US ratification of the ICC | |||||||||||||||||
| a) The first issue, concerning the war crime of the transfer of an occupying power's population into a territory it occupies (Article 9, Section 2, Paragraph (a), Sub paragraph (xiii), has been largely resolved.� Several other states shared concern over this issue with the United States. 5 | |||||||||||||||||
| b) The second issue concerned the possibility that Article 12, Section 3� (acceptance of jurisdiction by non-state parties) could permit a non-state party to refer single crimes, rather than an entire situation, to the court. 5 | |||||||||||||||||
| c) The major problem is U.S. wants unrestricted and total exemption of its military and political officials and personnel from the jurisdiction of the ICC.� The reason is that they were acting as agents of the U.S. government.� That makes a big question mark over the "independence and accountability" of the ICC in the arena of International Law and Order that has no territorial limitation under the Rome Statue. | |||||||||||||||||
| d) US Lawmakers thought that it is unconstitutional for US to ratify the ICC.� US Senator Jesse Helms led efforts to block ratification by the US of the July 1998 Rome Statute establishing the ICC.� Helms told the UN Security Council on January 20 that the ICC "claims sovereign authority over American citizens without their consent."1 | |||||||||||||||||
| Arguments for US ratification of the ICC | |||||||||||||||||
| a) Nothing in the Constitution.� As stated by Louis Henkin: "There is nothing in the Constitution that would seem to forbid the United States to agree to an international tribunal, whether sitting in the US or elsewhere, that would apply international law to acts committed by individuals in the US, including U.S. citizens and residents."5 | |||||||||||||||||
| b) Paradigm Shift in the definition of National Security.�� National security of a State included issues that spread over the national territorial boundaries.� It includes protecting civilians and war-affected children, countering threat of terrorism, drug trafficking, open borders issues and infectious diseases.� Look at the foreign policy dialogues of the past five years in meetings such as NATO, the OSCE, the Organization of American States, and G-8 foreign ministers' meeting, the human security issues have became integral to the debate. | |||||||||||||||||
| c) Different War Victim.� Effects of the present-day war are completely different from World War I and II. �In the First World War, where 95 percent of all casualties among those in uniform, today's conflicts are having a devastating impact on noncombatants.� In Mozambique, civilians accounted for 95 percent of casualties; in Angola, 90 percent; and in Sierra Leone, more than 85 percent. | |||||||||||||||||
| d) Globalization. As the Globalization has increased emphasis on International Relationship, it is not limited to the states' rights and national sovereignty.� Globalization that enforces the open border policy is another factor to be considered over the principle of sovereignty.� Civilians working or traveling overseas face threat of terrorism, drugs or AIDS.� In this reality of globalization no single country can effectively deal the problems that spread across territories boundaries without strong International Law and Order. | |||||||||||||||||
| Conclusion | |||||||||||||||||
| ����������� The first two arguments against the US ratification have been resolved in the Preparatory Commission.� The major obstacles are its attempt to get exempted its military and political officials and personnel from the jurisdiction of the Court and overlapping of jurisdiction.� "Overlapping jurisdictions is a fact of life in today's interconnected world." 5 As the trend of foreign policy is toward "Human Security" over "National Sovereignty", US will be ready to ratify the Rome Statute once its lawmakers realized the fundamental shift in the international foreign policy. | |||||||||||||||||
| Reference: | |||||||||||||||||
| 1. Annan urges US lawyers to back international criminal court, Agence France Presse, New York, September 29, 2000. | |||||||||||||||||
| 2. John F. Murphy, The Quivering Gulliver: U.S. Views on a Permanent International Criminal Court, The International Lawyer, American Bar Association, 2000. | |||||||||||||||||
| 3. Lawrance Ziring et al, The United Nations: International Organization and World Politics, third edition, Harcourt College Publishers, 2000. | |||||||||||||||||
| 4. Lloyd Axworthy, Real human security; Terrorism, drugs, disease get new attention, The Washington Times, August 29, 2000. | |||||||||||||||||
| 5. Secretariat of The Coalition for an International Criminal Court, Country-by-Country Ratification Status Report, October 2, 2000. | |||||||||||||||||
| - - - - - | |||||||||||||||||
| Click here to send me your comment | |||||||||||||||||
| Go Back to My Homepage | |||||||||||||||||