A Citizen of the World

Last week, in a triumph of international cooperation, 10 foreign governments ratified the International Criminal Court (ICC), an international body to prosecute individuals accused of war crimes. The new ratifications pushed the total number of countries in support of the ICC to 66, well past the 60 needed to begin the process of establishing the new court in The Hague. Even though the court’s ratification met widespread praise amongst the leading democracies in the world, President Bush and many other prominent American political leaders steadfastly oppose the court’s creation. Such stringent opposition is unwise and even harmful to America’s best interests.

Rather than opposing the court’s formation, America should be the 67th country to ratify the ICC and participate in its development. This would send a clear message that the United States lives by the same rules as everyone else, while at the same time allowing America’s voice to be considered as the nascent international institution grows. The ICC itself will institutionalize the prosecution of war criminals and dictators, eliminating the need for the various ad hoc tribunals that have tried leaders like Slobodan Milosevic. Yet the White House flatly refused to send the treaty to Congress even to be considered for ratification, and Congress banned any government official from cooperating with the new international body.

The Bush administration worries that the court will compromise America’s national sovereignty. Yet this concern is completely misplaced for a country like the United States, which has a fair and established judicial system based on the rule of law. The court’s role is to step in when national institutions fail to bring to justice those responsible for war crimes or crimes against humanity within their borders. Perhaps Bush is more worried about America’s prerogative to try and convict terrorists on its own terms rather than in an international setting guided by a basic commitment to fairness and human rights.

Others have raised concerns that countries hostile to the United States would use the court as a venue to attack America and its leaders. This argument ignores the fact that the judges presiding over the court will come from nations committed to the rule of law, such as Great Britain and Canada. It also assumes that an American could not commit a war crime heinous enough to be worthy of prosecution. This is nothing but pompous self-aggrandizement; a war criminal is a war criminal, whatever the nationality.

Bush’s latest move is yet another example of what is perceived abroad to be a unilateralist American agenda, formed without consultation with or consideration of America’s allies. The very mention of the possibility that Bush might “unsign” the treaty is deeply disturbing; such an action would enrage allies who have put a great deal of effort into finally establishing the ICC. In the post-Sept. 11 world, the United States needs to cooperate with friendly foreign governments, not antagonize them by opposing an overdue international body that would provide the framework to prosecute those responsible for genocide, terrorism and other war crimes.

Dissent: Designed To Be Abused

The staff mistakenly calls the International Criminal Court a multinational institution. In fact, the court is a supranational institution. Rather than being an agreement between sovereign nation states, the court claims ultimate jurisdiction over independent nation states. The ICC claims the right to address issues of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and aggression. All of these, particularly aggression—which the court has not yet defined—are subject to politically motivated interpretation. Consider one of the many vague definitions of crimes against humanity, “acts...causing great suffering...to mental or physical health.”

Had the treaty been in effect during the bombing of Afghanistan, it is likely that the United States would have been accused of inflicting mental hurt upon the civilian population. The ICC could easily evolve into an institution that tries to trump preventative military action. In an era of maniacal terrorism, does it make sense for the U.S. to ratify a treaty that has no mechanism for preventing this type of jurisdictional overreaching?

Will the court attempt to prosecute the leaders of China for their population transfers into Tibet and their repression of the Falun Gong? Will the court go after Saudi Arabia’s ruling family for its oppression of women? That would be the day.

At the impetus of the Arab caucus and other third-world countries, the ICC will face a torrent of accusations against Israel and the United States. International organizations where small states have as large a role as major powers create comical scenarios such as Syria replacing the U.S. on a Human Rights Commission. The U.S. should not be party to more of this nonsense than it already is.

—Jonathan H. Esensten ’04, Anat Maytal ’05,

Ronaldo Rauseo-Ricupero ’04, Rahul Rohatgi ’03,

Paul C. Schultz ’03 and Andrew P. Winerman ’04