Why the United States Opted Out of the International Criminal Court

The United States is present - militarily, financially, politically, or otherwise - in every country on every continent in the world. We have military forces spread throughout Latin America, Africa, Asia, Europe, and everywhere in between, not to mention the naval forces encircling the globe via waterways. The world-wide globalization of the economy has produced deep, complex relationships between the global financial centers of the world, to include New York, London, Paris, Tokyo, among others.

While the effects of an American recession may not be felt as deeply on a global scale as they had in the past, world markets still follow Americas lead. On the political, social, and cultural fronts, the rise in American preeminence following the dissolution of the Soviet Union has provided the United States with an unprecedented role as sole global superpower. The world currently exists in a unique unipolar moment, and while American hegemony may be fading from peak levels in the late 1990s as countries race to catch up, we continue to be the global leader in politics, finance, etc. - militarily we are decades ahead of most other countries - for many more years to come.

From the viewpoint of other nations, this American dominance is cause for serious concern. Regarding International Relations Theory, the first goal of a state is to secure as much power as possible for itself, and when necessary, align itself with other states to counter the possible threats of a larger state. This balance-of-power model has existed since the modern nation-state system's inception, and we can look to Europe from the 1700s to the end of World War II as an example (Terry, 2006). What we see today is an increasingly powerful United States able to act unilaterally when need be, and this causes other nations to both question the United States' commitment to international organizations and condemn us when we act against the consensus of international agreements.

Regardless of how the world may view the United States' opinion on a particular policy issue or global event, our unrivaled power gives us the means to "go it alone" when we see international consensus conflict with U.S. interests. This often subjects us to contempt from both our "allies" overseas and the liberal media at home who wish to hand American sovereignty over to the United Nations so we can all hold hands with al-Qaeda and sing around the campfire. The Bush Administration has done an admirable job at maintaining American sovereignty, going so far as to define it in terms which often conflict with European idealism or Russian/Chinese blatant autocratic power plays.

That said, the United States' decision to not become party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court is wholly understandable when a thorough review of the ICC is conducted. First, we need to remember that global powers tend to gravitate away from the entanglements inherent in international agreements as these tend to provide less benefit to a powerful state (Ikenberry, 2003). There are several specific reasons why the Bush Administration has opted out of the ICC, most important among them the erosion of American sovereignty inherent in the ICC's necessary jurisprudence, but also the lack of legitimate checks and balances on the court's prosecutorial system, it's ability to disregard national court decisions, and the obvious potential for exploitation and politically motivated prosecutions (Nahas, 2003). We see the presence of American troops in over 100 countries at any given moment, and the thought of these men and women being prosecuted for their actions by an unaccountable court system such as the ICC is totally unacceptable.

This is not a case of the United States, specifically the Bush Administration, scoffing at international law and attempting to place the U.S. above the law. Rather, the passage of the American Servicemembers' Protection Act through Congress in 2001 presents a united American front in securing our national sovereignty. This law prohibits American funds to the ICC, cooperation with the ICC, and restricts U.S. peacekeeping in or military assistance for countries which have ratified the ICC treaty. To limit the number of countries which the United States would be prevented from assisting under this act, the Bush Administration has sought and obtained Article 98 Agreements with over 100 signatories of the ICC treaty (Boucher, 2005). These agreements are Status of Forces Agreements which require each country party to the agreement to return foreign soldier's to their home country when convicted of a crime, thus rendering the ICC jurisdiction a dead issue.

While we are entering a world where increased cooperation among states will require stronger international organizations with the ability to operate above the traditional state-centric model, we just have not reached the point where a majority of the states - those with enough power to resist - are willing to cede national sovereignty to these institutions. What's interesting to see is that the United States is being challenged more frequently by the European Union, a re-emergent China and Russia, and increasing calls for more multilateralism in international affairs, from at home and abroad. We are still the sole superpower, and thus able to act without international consensus when we feel American interests are at stake. This is not always going to be the case, however, and the United States should use its time as global hegemon to demand reform in the United Nations and other international organizations whose ideals are sound while their practices are not. We need to be willing to pull out of these institutions if necessary and take our money with us. The ICC is a no-brainer. This is not the type of treaty the United States needs to be wrapped up in at a time when troops are deployed to highly visible locations around the globe on a near constant basis.

Works Cited

Bolton, John R.. "The United States and the International Criminal Court." state.gov. 14 Nov 2002. U.S. Department of State. 2 Sep 2008 http://www.state.gov/t/us/rm/15158.htm.

Boucher, Richard. "U.S. Signs 100th Article 98 Agreement." state.gov. 03 May 2005. U.S. Department of State. 2 Sep 2008 http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2005/45573.htm.

Ikenberry, G. John. "Strategic Reactions to American Preeminence:." dni.gov. 28 July 2003. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence. 2 Sep 2008 http://www.dni.gov/nic/PDF_GIF_2020_Support/2003_11_24_papers/ikenberry_StrategicReactions.pdf.

Nahas, Albert G.. "International Criminal Court and the U.S.." trinidad.usembassy.gov. 10 Dec 2003. Embassy of the United States of America: Trinidad and Tobago. 2 Sep 2008 http://trinidad.usembassy.gov/speech031210.html.

Terry, Bruce. "European Balance of Power: Will the European Union Upset Russia as it Balances the United States?." allacademic.com. 22 May 2006. All Academic Research. 2 Sep 2008 http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/9/8/3/5/p98355_index.html
.