Global Policy Forum

The United States this week turned its back on the International Criminal Court and, for good measure, said unkind things about it. The court was 'unaccountable', it was inconsistent with the US Constitution and by implication, it threatened America's sovereignty and the legal protections given its soldiers and public officials.

What was left unsaid was that these worthies range far and wide in the service of a superpower-empire, and who knows how their sacrifices in support of world order might get twisted by some America-hater. It is extraordinary, coming from the government of a country built on laws. Not only did America 'un-sign' a treaty the departing President Bill Clinton put his name to - possibly a world first in transnational jurisprudence - but to do that, it had also to renounce the Vienna Law of Treaties, which sets out the obligations of nations to abide by treaties they have signed, even if not ratified.

The US appears to be saying international law is modular, invoked when it serves its interests, but national sovereignty is paramount. The Reagan administration mocked the authority of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) when it found the US guilty of aggression for mining Nicaragua's harbours during the CIA-directed campaign against the Sandinistas in the 1980s. This is not conduct expected of a nation that asserts its moral right to defend cherished values and punish iniquities beyond its borders. The sad thing is, America has a record in armed intervention it can be more proud of than ashamed.

With or without the US, however, the Criminal Court will be empanelled at The Hague, as more than the required 60 nations have agreed to it. This is long overdue to complete the international structure of legal redress as its other arm, the ICJ, hears disputes between nations. The court's jurisdiction to prosecute war crimes and crimes against humanity - in other words, individuals, as with the Rwanda and Yugoslavia ad hoc panels - takes effect on July 1. This little detail seems to have been missed in the American squealing: the largely European framers of the statute made sure jurisdiction was not retroactive, which could expose servants of plundering old colonial powers to retribution.

American protestations about the risk of politically-motivated prosecutions are flawed on two counts. Firstly, the court cannot pursue cases already being investigated by the country accused of atrocities. Secondly, the treaty language says the court may not proceed unless instructed to do so by a signatory nation or the United Nations Security Council.

Mr Richard Butler, former head of the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq, makes a cutting observation about US selectivity in his book, Fatal Choice: 'It surely cannot imply that no American could ever commit crimes over which the ICC would have jurisdiction. That would be truly preposterous.'

One final irony: In repudiating the court, the US places itself in exotic company. Libya is the only other country opposed. Israel, Russia, Iran and Syria have not formalised acceptance, although they have signed. Iraq, China, India and Pakistan have not even signed it. It demonstrably cannot be the case that America's standards of accountability and care for human rights fall below most of those countries. Why did it stray across the tracks? That it is exceptional? If it disagreed with the court's specific formulation, it should have sought changes. That is proper exercise of sovereignty. Instead, it is placing itself outside the ambit of international law. A superpower can pull such stunts, but at what cost to its stature?

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.