Summary
The ICC came into force in 2002 to help in the investigation, prosecution, and punishing of individuals found guilty of committing serious crimes. The crimes the court focuses on include aggression and war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide crimes. Its function is to establish the rule of law and enforcing compliance with international law to end mass violence. America failed to join the ICC because of the philosophical and long-standing political traditions in the USA community. One of the pros that the US may get when they join the ICC is that the court can help them solve the cases that the national court is not willing to solve. The US should not join ICC because the ICC established a flawed institution having no protection against political influence. Russian and China have also not joined the ICC because of the flaws in the court’s jurisdiction mode. Russia pulled out of the ICC because they realized that the court was not authoritative and independent judicial body
International Criminal Law
The ICC was established in 1998 by the Rome Statute of International Criminal Court and came into force in 2002 after the ratification of the Rome Statute by sixty countries. The main purpose of why the court was established is to investigate, prosecute, and try persons indicted for committing the utmost serious crimes that are of concern to the international community (Amann & Sellers, 2002). These crimes include aggression and war crimes, crimes that are against humanity, and genocide crimes. ICC’s function is to establish the rule of law to end impunity by inducing and enforcing compliance with particular norms of international law to stop mass violence. The US has not joined ICC because of the philosophical and long-standing political traditions in the USA community (Amann & Sellers, 2002). Some of the traditions that have made America not join ICC are the Americans’ belief that they can help the suffering individuals better than the international community. The US also believes that its ability to assist others without changing its culture and national identity will be threatened by joining ICC, an institution having its own regulations and laws which originate from societies that are non-American. The US has also not joined ICC because of the belief that ICC is part of the maligned UN (Ralph, 2003). Some of the pros that America may get when they join ICC are that the court will complement the US existing national judicial system to solve the piled cases. It can also help America investigate and prosecute crimes in cases where the national courts are unable or unwilling to investigate and prosecute given crimes. The cons for the US being a member of the ICC are that ICC cannot prosecute delinquencies committed before July 2002 (Amann & Sellers, 2002). Another con that America may face when it became a member of the ICC is that crimes committed in the territory of states that are not members of the ICC will not be handled in the court. The other disadvantages are; Americans will not receive the ICC court services if the criminal they wish to take to ICC is not a national of the court state party. The USA should not join ICC because of the following reasons. The US should not join ICC is because the Rome Statute established a flawed institution with no protection against political influence hence not effective as was thought. It should also not join the ICC because the court violates the sovereignty of countries by claiming to have jurisdiction over military personnel and nationals of countries, not a party to it during certain circumstances (Amann & Sellers, 2002). America should not subscribe to the court because of its sweeping authority and limited accountability to the U.N. Security Council. Additionally, the US shouldn’t join the ICC because of its special place in providing peace and order in the international community. If the US joins the ICC, it will tamper with its endeavor of guaranteeing peace and order in the international community (Christian, 2015). Some of the international perspectives that point at the flaws in ICC to support the US decision not join the court include its petite performance compared to the ad hoc tribunals it was established to replace. For example, the prosecutor of ICC took six months to start an investigation in Uganda, close to two years to open an investigation in the case of Central Africa Republic presented before it, and also took more than a year to open the Darfur case (Nouwen & Werner, 2010). Additionally, its investigations and trials have not ended the atrocities in Darfur, Uganda, and DRC (Nouwen & Werner, 2010). Another problem with ICC that should convince America not to join the ICC is that it has no mechanism of enforcing the rulings it makes. Forcing it to exclusively depend on governments to apprehend and transfer criminals to the court. Such apprehensions had diplomatic consequences hence inhibiting the efficacy of the ICC in pursuing warrants and prosecuting its unsettled cases. The Russian and Chinese case studies are also good reasons that show the flaws in the ICC to influence America not to join the court. For instance, Russia pulled out of the Rome Statute since they realized that the court was not authoritative and independent judicial body since it had failed to meet its prospects of the international community. Russian claimed that ICC decisions are politically aligned after the ICC prosecutor alluded that the situation in Sevastopol and Crimea’s territory would contribute to global armed conflict between Ukraine and Russia (Mezyaev, 2020). China also opposed the court’s jurisdiction over crimes against humanity that are committed during peaceful periods. China argued that jurisdiction on crimes against humanity should only apply when a crime has nexus to armed conflict, a concept that the ICC laws do not recognize. Because the court did not consider the nexus between crimes against humanity and armed conflict, they opted not to join the ICC. Such flaws are good reasons enough to influence the US not to join the ICC. The ramifications of the US not joining the ICC will make it not to receive any assistance from the court in case they have a complex case with the international community requiring them to solve (Amann & Sellers, 2002). The US might also face opposition in some of its major decisions in the international community as the court’s influence might cause its members not to support the US in their endeavors.