International Law

Harvard International Review forwarded an interesting and opinionated article on “The End of Exceptionalism in War Crimes: The International Criminal Court and America’s Credibility in the World” by David Scheffer, Richard Cooper and Juliette Voinov Kohler, strongly advocating that the US join the ICC.  It is a very internationalist/moral/human rights call, noting that “[t]he United States needs the ICC to help restore its global credibility, discipline its own decision-making, and strengthen judicial intervention against atrocity crimes.”  It also takes a broadly negative view of US international law/foreign policy of late which occassionally hurts the specific arguments as they are couched within such broad-brush strokes about the Bush administration’s various positions. 

There are more “realist” articles out there arguing that the ICC is continuing with or without the US and the US might be more effective “within” the system and noting that US systems are adequate to address war crimes violations by US leaders and soldiers so no US soldier would be before the ICC.  The article duly notes these arguments, especially that the US should be involved or lose the ability to influence changes, including during the Rome Statute review process in 2009.  But the article takes a direct stand on potential US liability, writing that “[n]o nation should ignore its duty to bring war criminals to justice or otherwise shield its own leaders or soldiers from charges of genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes” (emphasis added) and implying that the ICC should take cases of US actions if the US fails to prosecute. 

The article rightly notes that this will remain a hot topic, especially if the stance really is that US soldiers and leaders might ultimately be tried in such settings.  The timetable it sets up may be unrealistic, but certainly the debate will continue as 2009 approaches. 

Thank you for the forward.