Document Type

Article

Disciplines

International Law

Abstract

Throughout the 20th century, the international community sought to create a permanent international court to handle crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide. Following the atrocities of World War II, the Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials - in turn - addressed the crimes committed during World War II' Through the Geneva Conventions and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there was an increasing validity of "individual human rights as a legitimate subject of international law."2 In the drafting stages of the Geneva Conventions, the United States lobbied for the inclusion of a provision that would establish an international criminal court;3 however, American views and policies of the establishment of an international criminal court have dramatically changed. A country once leading the charge of seeking justice for victims of genocide and crimes against humanity now remains on the outside of the International Criminal Court* fifteen yearS4 after the adoption of the Rome Statute.

This paper will first present the history of the International Criminal Court by analyzing the evolving positions of three Presidential administrations on American membership to the ICC. The arguments for and against ratification will be presented. Supporters believe joining the ICC reflects solidarity with the 122 other States Parties, and enhances international law. Opponents of the Court believe the Rome Statute is incompatible with the United States Constitution, and exposes Americans to potential prosecution. The paper concludes by recommending what the United States should do with regards to joining the International Criminal Court.

Accessibility Requirements

1

Download

Share

COinS