Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-8mjnm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-27T20:01:57.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The United States and the International Criminal Court

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Extract

The United States has had and will continue to have a compelling interest in the establishment of a permanent international criminal court (ICC). Such an international court, so long contemplated and so relevant in a world burdened widi mass murderers, can both deter and punish diose who might escape justice in national courts. Since 1995, the question for the Clinton administration has never been whether there should be an international criminal court, but rather what kind of court it should be in order to operate efficiently, effectively and appropriately within a global system that also requires our constant vigilance to protect international peace and security. At the same time, the United States has special responsibilities and special exposure to political controversy over our actions. This factor cannot be taken lightly when issues of international peace and security are at stake. We are called upon to act, sometimes at great risk, far more than any other nation. This is a reality in the international system.

Type
Developments in International Criminal Law
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Conrad K. Harper, Remarks on Agenda Item 137, Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its 46th Session: International Criminal Court, before the 49th Session of the United Nations General Assembly, in the Sixth Committee, USUN Press Release No. 149 (Oct. 25, 1994).

2 Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-sixth session, UN GAOR, 49th Sess., Supp. No. 10, at 44, UN Doc. A/49/10 (1994).

3 Clinton, William Jefferson, Remarks at the Opening of the Commemoration of “50 Years After Nuremberg: Human Rights and the Rule of Law,University of Connecticut, 1995 Pub. Papers 1597, 1598 Google Scholar; Statements of President William Jefferson Clinton, at the Army Conference Room in the Pentagon, 33 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 119 (Jan. 29, 1997); before the 52nd Session of the United Nations General Assembly, id. at 1389 (Sept. 22, 1997); in Honor of Human Rights Day, the Museum of Jewish Heritage, New York, id. at 2003 (Dec. 9, 1997); at a White House Press Briefing on Bosnia, id. at 2074 (Dec. 18, 1997); and William Jefferson Clinton, Remarks by the President to Genocide Survivors, Assistance Workers, and U.S. and Rwanda Government Officials, Kigali Airport, Kigali, Rwanda, 34 id. at 497 (Mar. 25, 1998).

4 See Proposal Submitted by the United States of America: Preliminary rulings regarding admissibility, Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, UN Doc. A/AC.249/1998/WG.3/DP.2.

5 See Reference Paper Submitted by the United States: Rules of Evidence of the International Criminal Court, Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, UN Doc. A/AC.248/1998/DP.15 (1998).

6 Report of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/2/Add.1, at 12, 14 (1998).

7 Id. at 14.

8 Statement of the United States Delegation to the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court (Mar. 23, 1998), reprinted in Is a UN International Criminal Court in the U.S. National Interest? Hearing Before the Subcomm. on International Operations of the Senate Comm. on Foreign Illations, 105th Cong. 129 (1998) [hereinafter Senate Hearing].

9 Crimes Against Humanity: Lack of a Requirement for a Nexus to Armed Conflict (Mar. 25, 1996) (on file with the U.S. Department of State).

10 See The Concerns of the United States Regarding the Proposal for a Proprio Motu Prosecutor, in Senate Hearing, supra note 8, at 147.

11 See note 4 supra. For a further refinement of this proposal, see UN Doc. A/CONF.183/C.1/L.25 (1998).

12 See International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law committed in the territory of former Yugoslavia since 1991, Rules of Procedure and Evidence, as revised, Art. 72, UN Doc. IT/32/Rev.l3 (1998) (originally adopted Feb. 11, 1994).

13 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, July 17, 1998, Arts. 8(2)(d), 8(2)(f), 8(3), UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9* <http://www.un.org/icc>, reprinted in 37 ILM 999 (1998).

14 Proposal Submitted by the United States of America: Elements of Offenses for the International Criminal Court, Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, UN Doc. A/AC.249/1998/DP.11 (1998).

15 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, opened for signature May 23, 1969, Arts. 34–38, 1155 UNTS 331.

16 UN Doc. A/CONF.183/C.1/L.70 (1998).

17 UN Doc. A/CONF.183/C.1/L.90 (1998).

18 An interesting perspective can be found in Theodor Meron, The Court We Want, Wash. Post, Oct. 13, 1998, at A15.

19 At a minimum, this led to an unusually high number of technical errors that were corrected by another objectionable procedure activated by the UN Legal Counsel. See Proposed Corrections to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, UN Doc. C.N.502.1998.TREATIES-3 (Annex).

20 See David J. Scheffer, Statement on the International Criminal Court, Remarks Before the 53rd Session of the United Nations General Assembly, in the Sixth Committee, USUN Press Release No. 179 (Oct. 21, 1998), and Statement of the United States before the UN General Assembly (Dec. 8, 1998) (on file with the State Department).