U.S. ICC Treaty the Benefits and Drawbacks

¶ … U.S. ICC Treaty

The Benefits and Drawbacks of the U.S. Entering Into an ICC Treaty

An ICC treaty would involve the International Criminal Court (Broomhall, 2003). A treaty with such a governing body is designed to affect prosecution for war crimes, genocide, the crime of aggression (but not until 2017), and crimes against humanity (Roach, 2009). The Court is seated in the Netherlands, but proceedings can take place in other countries (Roach, 2009). While many countries are part of the ICC in that they have treaties with it, the United States does not want to be one of the countries that allows the ICC to have domination over it when it comes to war crimes and related issues. There are both benefits and drawbacks for the U.S. If it changes its position and creates a treaty with the ICC. Both of these are important to discuss, because they have to be carefully weighed before the U.S. can make a choice as to whether it would be an overall benefit or an overall detriment to engage in such a treaty.

Among the major cons of the U.S. having a treaty with the ICC is the belief that the checks and balances of that particular governing body are not strong enough. There are too many opportunities for abuse, and for prosecutions that are too closely based on politics and not based on actual evidence or information (Roach, 2009). Henry Kissinger stated the weakness of the checks and balances, and indicated that there would be virtually limitless discretion by the prosecutor (Roach, 2009). Because of that, the prosecutor and the rest of the ICC would be able to make choices that might not accurately reflect the truth of the matter at hand, or the guilt or innocence of the accused (Broomhall, 2003). ICC protections are also thought to be insufficient, and there are many concerns that the constitutional rights of Americans who would be required to appear before the ICC would not be recognized properly (Broomhall, 2003). These rights include confronting ones accusers, trial by jury, and the avoidance of double jeopardy (Roach, 2009).

There are some benefits to the United States, of course, but they are relatively small. The camaraderie with other nations who have treaties with the ICC, and the conformity the U.S. would have if it also signed a treaty with that governing body are both important (Roach, 2009). However, they do not really afford the U.S. with any kind of protection for its citizens. There is something to be said for "fitting in" and "going along with others" in order to have a stronger bond with others. Countries do this just like individuals, because they work at creating ties with one another, building treaties with other nations, and finding ways to work together in trade and other issues. Treaties can help the U.S. move forward and be even more successful than it currently is (Broomhall, 2003). The success of the country, though, is built on its citizens. Those citizens have to be respected, treated well, and protected. If the ICC is not providing the protection those citizens need, the citizens are not as likely to support their country. They will not feel safe, and they may even relocate to another country where they feel their interests will be better represented and where their safety will be more closely guarded.