The International Criminal Court and Prosecutor
In one of his last official acts of Y2K, President Clinton affixed the signature of the United States to the 1998 UN Treaty of Rome, which establishes the International Criminal Court and Prosecutor. It was a terrible commitment of American prestige, and Congress should position itself squarely against the Court.
President Clinton himself admitted that we have been unable to modify important provisions of the treaty, and he initially withheld his signature because of serious threats posed by the court to American military and diplomatic personnel.
In one of his last official acts of Y2K, President Clinton affixed the signature of the United States to the 1998 UN Treaty of Rome, which establishes the International Criminal Court and Prosecutor. It was a terrible commitment of American prestige, and Congress should position itself squarely against the Court.
President Clinton himself admitted that we have been unable to modify important provisions of the treaty, and he initially withheld his signature because of serious threats posed by the court to American military and diplomatic personnel.
The Court will be both prosecutor and judge of those accused of “war crimes,” “crimes against humanity,” “genocide” and possibly “aggression” words that have been used widely and inappropriately against Israel and the U.S. As “crimes,” they are expansively defined by the treaty and will be interpreted by the court’s judges who are accountable to no one. And the Court will not be required to provide Americans the basic protections guaranteed by our Constitution, including trial by jury, protection against compelled self-incrimination, and the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses.
The following is excerpted from the 25 July congressional testimony of The Hon. John Bolton, of JINSA’s Board of Advisors:
“Many ICC supporters believe simply that if you abhor genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, you should support the ICC. This logic is flatly wrong for three compelling reasons.
“First, all available historical evidence demonstrates that the Court and the Prosecutor will not achieve their central goal, the deterrence of heinous crimes, because they do not (and should not) have sufficient authority in the real world.
“Second, the ICC’s advocates mistaken belief that the international search for “justice” is everywhere and always consistent with the attainable political resolution of serious political and military disputes, whether between or within states, and the reconciliation of hostile neighbors. In the real world, justice and reconciliation may be consistent – or they may not be.
(Third) “What the Conference actually did was to create not just a Court, but also a powerful and unaccountable piece of an executive branch: the Prosecutor – Its components do not fit into a coherent international structure that clearly delineates how laws are made, adjudicated and enforced, subject to popular accountability and structured to protect liberty. Just being, “out there’ in the international system is unacceptable.”
“One of the Executive Branch’s strongest powers is law enforcement. In the U.S., we accept this enormous power because we separate it from the adjudicative power, and because we render it politically accountable through presidential elections and congressional oversight.
“What to do next is obviously the critical question. We should oppose any suggestion that we cooperate, help fund, and generally support the work of the Court and Prosecutor. We should isolate and ignore the ICC.”