The United States and the International Criminal Court: How valid are the US arguments for not joining the International Court ?

Extraits

[...] Many questions arise both on the future of such a newly established Court and its ability to run efficiently without the support of the major world power, as well as on the motivations for American authorities to decline any support to the ICC. Focusing more specifically on the Statute of the International Criminal Court[3] will first enable us to see how limited is the power of the Court without the full cooperation of the Nation States, before considering the American arguments for not joining the ICC, and assessing the validity of the US arguments on this issue[4]. The International Criminal Court : a new international jurisdiction The ICC, seated in The Hague in The Netherlands, entered into force on July 1rst 2002[5]. [...]

[...] The ICC was designed as to be a permanent international court that would bear the advantages of permanency, unlike the ad hoc tribunals that are not as deeply anchored into a set of international agreed principles. However, in order to be efficient and to implement its action effectively, this court needs time to settle itself as well as it needs the full support of a maximum of Nations across the world. Indeed, this Court, as mentioned above, is complementary to the action of national jurisdictions and therefore will only prove to be effective if countries collaborate with the ICC in the course of the different procedures. [...]

[...] Let us considered and evaluate the validity of these arguments as to see why the USA is opposed to the ICC. American concerns about the protection of their nationals The prosecution and investigation by the ICC do not guarantee the same level of due process of law according to the US authorities[35]. The absence of a designated jury as well as the lack of recourt are put to the fore as the illustration for the non-respect of the due process of law. [...]

[...] Everett 132) in The United States and the International Criminal Court : national security and international law, Sarah B. Sewall and Carl Kaysen, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Or not properly dealt with, see infra page 6 Such as the bilateral agreement signed with Romania and the bilateral agreement signed by the European Union on the matter in October 2002 Le Monde, French newspaper published in Paris, Les nominations à la Cour pénale internationale sous le regard des ONG by Claire Tréan, December 4th article p 3 Idem In The ICC and the deployment of US Armed Forces , p 159, in The United States and the International Criminal Court : national security and international law, Sarah B. [...]

[...] Therefore, what is the point of such an international jurisdiction? The Court will only take action against an individual if a States fails or is unwilling to take appropriates steps to prosecute an individual suspected of having committed a crime under its jurisdiction. The idea is to have a complementary Court to the national jurisdictions in order to make sure that the prosecution of human rights' violations is correctly implemented worldwide. But then, the criminal procedure within the jurisdiction of the ICC does not provide the Court with unlimited powers. [...]