# Was Bush right to withdraw from the International Criminal Court? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 8, 2002, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-right-to-withdraw-from-the-international-criminal-court/107965 "2002-05-08T21:14:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2002, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-right-to-withdraw-from-the-international-criminal-court/107965/41 "2002-05-09T14:08:04Z")
I’m struck by the international treaties that have been arranged in the last few years, which had major flaws. In addition to the ICC, there was the Law of the Sea and the Kyoto accords. Maybe someone can offer an explanation. ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2002, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-right-to-withdraw-from-the-international-criminal-court/107965/42 "2002-05-09T14:34:34Z")
One…two…three…four…five…six…seven…eight…nine…ten. Exhale. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2002, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-right-to-withdraw-from-the-international-criminal-court/107965/43 "2002-05-09T14:37:59Z")
I have a serious problem with the entire idea of the ICC because of this one concept: > [@](#): > > One key provision – complementarity – **gives** countries with strong legal systems like the United States’ the right to exercise jurisdiction over cases involving their own citizens, as long as their legal systems are willing or able to do so. Since when is any international body recognized as being supreme to the Constitution of the US and deciding whether or not, within our borders, our legal system is ‘able’ to exercise jurisdiction? What happens if the ICC decides the US is not ‘able’ to handle its own jurisdiction or decides the fair trial received in US courts wasn’t acceptable to it and starts demanding a second trial? I’ll stick with the Constitution, thanks, and not recognize the ICC as having any authority to determine whether or not the judicial system in my sovereign country is ‘capable’ or not. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2002, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-right-to-withdraw-from-the-international-criminal-court/107965/44 "2002-05-09T14:40:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by catsix \* > \*\*I’ll stick with the Constitution, thanks, and not recognize the ICC as having any authority to determine whether or not the judicial system in my sovereign country is ‘capable’ or not. \*\* Reckon that Milosevic and the Taliban would be happy to take the same approach. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2002, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-right-to-withdraw-from-the-international-criminal-court/107965/45 "2002-05-09T15:10:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pldennison \* > \*\* > > This feeling is far from universal. Although I don’t necessarily agree with the structure not the conclusions of this link, these feelings are out there: > > [http://www.nationalreview.com/impromptus/impromptus050302.asp](http://www.nationalreview.com/impromptus/impromptus050302.asp) \*\* Well, consider the source… 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Sgt.J](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sgt.J](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sgt.J)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2002, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-right-to-withdraw-from-the-international-criminal-court/107965/46 "2002-05-09T15:11:52Z")
They did, and thank God for this treaty, or they’d still be in power. ---
**Author:** ![Sgt.J](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sgt.J](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sgt.J)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2002, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-right-to-withdraw-from-the-international-criminal-court/107965/47 "2002-05-09T15:18:59Z")
> [@](#): > > Reckon that Milosevic and the Taliban would be happy to take the same approach. They did, and thank God for this treaty, or they’d still be in power ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2002, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-right-to-withdraw-from-the-international-criminal-court/107965/48 "2002-05-09T17:18:13Z")
LONDON CALLING – > [@](#): > > I think, in a sense, a lot of this is academic (enforcement being the key here not the evolution of the legislation) but hey ho Sure. My pointing out that there have been no substantive changes was in response to an objection that linked comments were from 1999, and “fings have changed.” So the only point was that things have _not_ changed much since 1999, and comments made then about the treaty probably still hold. > [@](#): > > Jodi, sure, the original Statute was comprehensive but this is a ground-breaking piece of international legislation that has to stand up to interpretation in courts the world over – monstrous amounts of work have been done since the original drafting. As I understand it, the important document is Resolution F which establishes the timescale of the ‘Preparatory Commission’. This UN document walks us through how that has worked. Well, if I’m reading the linked document correctly, it deals with the implementation and ratification of the treaty – both important issues, of course, and certainly the cause of much hard work, but that doesn’t IMO go to the issue of whether the treaty itself is flawed. > [@](#): > > In addition, as a lawyer, I’m sure you’ll appreciate the work done as outlined, for example here (particular note of sections: ‘General remarks’ and 'Elements of war crimes - General principles of criminal law '): [reposted link](http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng...1256B66005F03BA) I’m reposting this link, because I think it’s an excellent one. To me, it frankly (and points to the commission for frankly acknowledging the problems its attempting to address) sets forth at least one problem with the treaty: The is no universal consensus on the definitions of terms to be used. For example: The treaty allows for citizens of ratifying countries to be tried for “crimes of aggression.” But what’s a crime of aggression? Well, it doesn’t say. And apparently they don’t have to agree on that until seven years after the treaty is ratified (!). So let me ask you: As an individual, would you agree to submit to prosecution for a crime to be determined later? You have to decide _now_ if you’ll be prosecuted _then_. Of course, that’s not how it would really work: If the Court came up with a definition that was totally outrageous, the countries could refuse to be bound by it – under the common law (and, over here, constitutional) prohibition against _ex post facto_ laws. But why sign up now and then bail out then? Why not just wait and see how the court defines _all_ relevant terms before deciding whether or not to sign up? > [@](#): > > One key provision – complementarity – gives countries with strong legal systems like the United States’ the right to exercise jurisdiction over cases involving their own citizens, as long as their legal systems are willing or able to do so. In such cases, the ICC is precluded from becoming involved, **even in cases where the national legal system ultimately decides not to prosecute.**" But, you see, this is itself a problem with the treaty. It gives “countries with strong legal systems” – and who decides that? Does Iran have a stong legal system? I’m betting they’d say they do. – the ability to essentially _opt out_ by declaring “we have the right to prosecute our own people, but we are choosing not to do so, and you can’t do it either.” This could potentially lead to bargaining between countries about whether their nationals will or will not be submitted to justice before the court. This, in turn, leads to the concept of “justice as a negotiable instrument” – and makes the court another chip in international foreign policy. That is not IMO the role of a court of law. And I also note that the “Dear Mr. Bush” letter only states that it is “highly unlikely” American personnel would be brought before the court without the U.S.'s consent – not that it is not possible. > [@](#): > > I think the final point I want to make is that this (the ICC) really isn’t about the United States of America – well, that is unless the military – and then the US Court dealing with the matter - seemingly do something quite extraordinary. I agree. And IMO the rest of the world is free to continue to set up the ICC and get it up and running, as it apparently fully intends to do. The U.S.'s position has never been that the ICC is not a great idea, or should not exist, but rather that the U.S. is not willing to sign up for it at this time and in its present form. And I see the tension there. On the one hand, the U.S. is now, IMO and whether it likes it or not, the nation much of the rest of the world looks to for leadership on a global scale. Therefore, the importance of having it endorse efforts at international cooperation like the ICC cannot be overstated. But against that global obligation, the U.S. must weigh its national obligation to act in its own best interests and protect its citizens and soldiers. Sometimes those roles can’t be easily reconciled. > [@](#): > > The purpose of the ICC, IMHO, is to create an international legal framework that says to potential political psychopaths and nutballs: "Look, wherever you are, we’re gonna get you, Mr Milosevic , Mr Pinochet, Mr Machete Man of Rwanda – it’s about ending the immunity prosecution (its origins lie in the aftermath of atrocities in Bosnia like Srebrenica. Now, the headline sound bites talks of Genocide, etc but the ICC is also about protecting the rights of women and children (Rape, etc) who, until now, have had little or no protection from the excesses of war. The problem is not what it is _intended_ to do – I don’t think anyone is arguing its goals and purpose are not lofty and worthwhile. The problem is what it could _possibly_ do with the uncertainties of the language as it exists today. > [@](#): > > The purpose and thrust of the ICC is not US-centric – but it is Genocide, women, children (etc)-centric, IMHO. I don’t think anyone has argued that it is U.S.-centric. Frankly, we’d probably be much more willing to sign and ratify it if it were (because then it presumably would have been written in a way acceptable to the U.S. government). But the U.S. has a national right to decline to participate in international treaties with which it is _for any reason_ unsatisfied. Frankly, if I were to place any blame in the matter, it would be on President Clinton for signing the treaty as a “symbolic” act of support for its goals, knowing full well the U.S. would never, ever ratify it in its present form – something _his_ secretary of state, Madeline Albright, acknowledged as far back as 1998. Then when injects a little reality into the situation – “This doesn’t work for us; in it’s present form it will never work for us; we want nothing further to do with it” – the U.S. is painted as “withdrawing” from a treaty it in fact never ratified – as “breaking its word” when in fact its word should never have been given in the first place. I would also add, parenthetically, that I sympathize with the almost-impossible task faced by those who are attempting to get the ICC up and running. But I don’t see how any criminal court can ever be effective (on any scale, be it global or local) when it lacks the overarching authority to drag criminals before it and submit them, even involuntarily, to the authority of the court. But the U.S. will never sign up for that, and neither will a lot of other countries, so the court commission is left attempting to get countries to submit to jurisdiction by agreement (by treaty), and with loopholes galore – including mechanisms to make submission to the court’s authority a negotiable thing on a case-by-case basis – an idea which is itself antithetical to the evenhanded imposition of impartial justice. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2002, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-right-to-withdraw-from-the-international-criminal-court/107965/49 "2002-05-09T17:38:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jodi \* > The first part of this is simply an opinion; Indeed, it is my analysis. > [@](#): > > the second is obviously incorrect. Well, it would have been incorrect if I were talking about or had in some way mentioned ratification, but then I **didn’t,** did I? No, my comments were about the situation as is, not some hypothetical and not at all metioned ratification as I presume that we both know the difference in the binary state, ratified, non ratified. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2002, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-right-to-withdraw-from-the-international-criminal-court/107965/50 "2002-05-09T18:17:54Z")
> [@](#): > > **Sgt J. said** > They did, and thank God for this treaty, or they’d still be in power I wasn’t aware that the UN needed approval of the ICC in order to take actions against genocide, nor that the US needed the approval of the ICC in order to rout out terrorists and the governments that sponsor them after a military (albiet unconventional) attack on their own soil. Are you asserting otherwise? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2002, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-right-to-withdraw-from-the-international-criminal-court/107965/51 "2002-05-09T19:21:07Z")
**VF:** \*I don’t think the US Government has any business setting up a court that circumvents the Bill of Rights. \* Do we take it that you’re opposed to the recently-established federal special tribunals for terrorism suspects as currently defined, then? **Saen:** \*I also think it’s a certain irony that the US was voted out of the human rights comission. While countries like Sudan , wich has a slavery, was chosen. So i think Bush has a leg or two to stand on.\* **THC:** \*The U.N is really more ineffective then anything else and I don’t see how realisticly they could enforce they international rules without massive U.S aid. […] The only effect I’ve seen, is causing European delegates to blow steam at us, which has been going since the early 1900s which is no surprise there. \* **Edlyn:** \*However nice it is to have allies and get along well with the rest of the world, you can do that without sacrificing our sovereignty be it a court, human rights, etc., etc. \* **december:** _I favor Bush’s action because at the moment I’m down on the international community. I’m turned off by yesterday’s General Assembly resolution…_ **Sam Stone:** _Many of us have lost faith in the 'International Community"._ **MG:** \*The ICC certainly isn’t necessary for the United States to cooperate with the rest of the world. We’ve managed to cooperate with Canada, Mexico, western Europe, Japan, and South Korea without the ICC. \* A general theme among the Rome-treaty opponents here seems to be a combination of distrust and disdain for international bodies (though, as has been noted, UN != ICC) with confidence that we can serve our own needs just as well or better by avoiding treaty obligations. That seems to be the Administration’s stance too. I’m not sure it’s justified. Especially at a time like this, when we are leaning hard on other countries to encourage international cooperation and adherence to international law, a step like withdrawing from the ICC makes our policy look at best confused and at worst unprincipled and hypocritical. (Particularly if, as **Vic** points out, we are objecting to the ICC on the grounds that they might deny US citizens some of the very protections that we are simultaneously insisting we can deny to citizens of other countries—ouch! How can that **not** look like a blatant double standard?) It’s certainly true that all treaties have flaws (I’m a bit surprised that **december** considers this a phenomenon of “the last few years” only; can you name **any** international treaty that doesn’t have **any** “major flaw”?), and that that is a headache for sovereign governments to deal with. The question is, do we serve our own interests better by dealing with the problems and disagreements of international relations **inside** the framework of mutually-accepted intergovernmental treaties, or **outside** it? The common assumption here that “outside is preferable” seems kind of blithe to me. As global-scale communication and activities increase, and the world gets smaller and smaller, international cooperation in all areas becomes more and more necessary. If we encourage, nay demand, that kind of cooperation from others when it’s a question of our own aims, but refuse to give guarantees of similar cooperation with the aims of others…well, it seems to me that the message that’s sending is “Rules are for the little guys.” I don’t think that that’s going to do any good to what other countries think of us. And unlike some here, I don’t think that what other countries think of us is an unimportant issue. ---
**Author:** ![Sgt.J](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sgt.J](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sgt.J)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2002, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-right-to-withdraw-from-the-international-criminal-court/107965/52 "2002-05-09T19:23:41Z")
No, it was a smartass response indicating that the Permanent International War crimes Court is unnecessary. **jjimm** made the analogy and it seemed funny to me because both regimes mentioned were removed from power **without** this agreement. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2002, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-right-to-withdraw-from-the-international-criminal-court/107965/53 "2002-05-09T20:19:40Z")
> [@](#): > > But what’s a crime of aggression? Well, it doesn’t say. Check out article 8. Crime of aggression is basically spelled out under ‘War Crimes’ section of the Rome Statute: [http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/romefra.htm](http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/romefra.htm) > [@](#): > > It gives “countries with strong legal systems” – and who decides that? The court… basically what it looks for a trial of those who are accused. It gives the state the first right to prosecute. If they do not, then the ICC can step in. Article 17: inadmissability \*(a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution; (b) The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has decided not to prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the State genuinely to prosecute; © The person concerned has already been tried for conduct which is the subject of the complaint, and a trial by the Court is not permitted under article 20, paragraph 3; (d) The case is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court.\* > [@](#): > > And I also note that the “Dear Mr. Bush” letter only states that it is “highly unlikely” American personnel would be brought before the court without the U.S.'s consent – not that it is not possible. What, would you like a veto power? Everyone can be tried except Americans? If we refuse to try someone that has engaged in widespread warcrimes (rememeber the ICC only prosecutes those who have done widespread or systematic crimes) then we are in the wrong, because that would mean the nation condoned the widespread killing of civilians. > [@](#): > > But against that global obligation, the U.S. must weigh its national obligation to act in its own best interests and protect its citizens and soldiers. Sometimes those roles can’t be easily reconciled. I am convinced that our best interest is to sign this treaty, so we would not have to go through the bureaucracy of the UN to get an ad hoc trial every time we felt it warrented. It would be better to have a full time court dedicated to deciding cases where the war criminals could be tried easily. We are simply being boars here, to an International Criminal Court that will have about **65 countries comprising it** (putting a hole in your argument Jodi about countries not going for it), including, by the end of this year, probably, most, if not all, of our European allies. Ratifying this and making it start up is IN our national interests. In the very least, it is part of the political globalization we have been attempting to do since the end of World War 2. The court will run under the US model of human rights, which we’ve been attempting to export for ages. ---
**Author:** ![Sgt.J](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sgt.J](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sgt.J)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2002, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-right-to-withdraw-from-the-international-criminal-court/107965/54 "2002-05-09T21:15:12Z")
While I don’t plan on committing any atrocities or war crimes, I will be on duty overseas as a member of the US Armed Forces for a short tour beginning next week. I would like to say I am opposed to anything that puts me under the jurisdiction of ANYTHING but the US Justice System and the UCMJ. When I enlisted I was told those were the standards I would be held accountable to. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2002, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-right-to-withdraw-from-the-international-criminal-court/107965/55 "2002-05-09T21:24:21Z")
KIMSTU – > [@](#): > > Especially at a time like this, when we are leaning hard on other countries to encourage international cooperation and adherence to international law, a step like withdrawing from the ICC makes our policy look at best confused and at worst unprincipled and hypocritical. I agree that this is how it makes us appear. But I wonder why the criticism is leveled at the President who made it clear we do not support the treaty in its current form, as opposed to the President who signed the treaty, apparently knowing full well as he did so that his country did not support the treaty in its current form and further knowing it would never, ever be ratified by his country. ISSIDIQUI – > [@](#): > > Check out article 8. Crime of aggression is basically spelled out under ‘War Crimes’ section of the Rome Statute. No, it’s not. “Acts of aggression” and “war crimes” are clearly enumerated as _separate_ grounds for prosecution. The former is in no way subsumed or included in the latter. They are different things; it’s just that one’s been defined and the other hasn’t yet (so far as I can discover). Again, are you willing to agree _now_to be prosecuted for some crime to be defined _later_? Because I wouldn’t be. I asked, paraphrasing, “who decides what countries have strong legal systems,” so as to be “complimentary” to the ICC? You say: > [@](#): > > The court… basically what it looks for a trial of those who are accused. It gives the state the first right to prosecute. If they do not, then the ICC can step in. I’m not sure I agree that it is a good thing to give an international tribunal the right to pass on the acceptability or validity of our or any other legal system. Furthermore, the treaty also give the ICC the right to decide if the decision of a country not to prosecute its own nationals was “genuine,” and if the court determines it was not, it may again attempt to exercise jurisdiction. Who decides what constitutes a “genuine” decision? Again, the court does. I’m not sure I’m comfortable having an international tribunal pass on the propriety of such decisions. > [@](#): > > What, would you like a veto power? Everyone can be tried except Americans? What I would like is the same or substantially similar guarantees of rights and due process as are enjoyed by U.S. citizens under the constitution. Now, the ICC in its present form may in fact include that; I don’t know it well enough to know. But I understand that a legitimate argument exists that it does not have such sufficient guarantees. Even the pro-treaty position is that wrongful (wrongful in American eyes) prosecution is only “unlikely.” It is, apparently, still possible. > [@](#): > > If we refuse to try someone that has engaged in widespread warcrimes (rememeber the ICC only prosecutes those who have done widespread or systematic crimes) then we are in the wrong, because that would mean the nation condoned the widespread killing of civilians. (A) Refusing to participate in the current iteration of the ICC does not constitute a refusal to try (or see tried) someone who has committed war crimes. We were never trying the criminals anyway; the ICC was (and is). They just will have to do it without us. (B) Refusing to participate in the current iteration of the ICC does not constitute a condoning of the commission of war crimes, any more than refusing to attend a rally for Save The Whales means you condone the killing of whales. > [@](#): > > We are simply being boars here . . . Well, I’m more of a small pink pig. 😉 > [@](#): > > . . . to an International Criminal Court that will have about 65 countries comprising it (putting a hole in your argument Jodi about countries not going for it), including, by the end of this year, probably, most, if not all, of our European allies. Ratifying this and making it start up is IN our national interests. I’m not convinced it _is_ in our national interests, when it theoretically cedes to the ICC the ability to judge the validity of decisions made by our own judicial system regarding our own nationals; when the “opting in/opting out” provisions (while probably necessary to get the thing ratified at all) may serve to make submission of crimes to the court an international bargaining chip; when there are arguably insufficient safeguards to the substantive and procedural rights of American citizens; and when key terms of the treaty have not even been defined yet. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2002, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-right-to-withdraw-from-the-international-criminal-court/107965/56 "2002-05-10T00:41:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jodi \* > I agree that this is how it makes us appear. But I wonder why the criticism is leveled at the President who made it clear we do not support the treaty in its current form, as opposed to the President who signed the treaty, apparently knowing full well as he did so that his country did not support the treaty in its current form and further knowing it would never, ever be ratified by his country. It really isn’t terribly hard to understand when one steps back and considers the issue in its larger context. It seems to have escaped many here that removal of signature from a treaty is a ravishingly rare act, more often associated with dictatorships than mature – or one would so hope, although rather like many analyses here, to so think seems to be an exercise in unwarranted optimism – participants in the international community. Moreover, it seems to have _never_ been done in re such a multilateral treaty, and certainly not by a major democracy. Insofar as this is … well, let’s say generously a highly unusual act fairly unprecedented for a mature democracy. Coming upon a whole series of clumsy if not willfully stupid diplomatic blunders (Venezuela, open chaos in re ME policy etc.) those who follow such things – of course perhaps one doesn’t follow such things – might be moved to wonder as to its rational. Perhaps it can be made clearer by thinking about the actual act. Annulling the signature in one fell stroke achieves what? Well, the US (a) loses its observer status which a non-ratifying signatory still gains, (b) loses any possible institutional influence (of course one must admit that the US will likely be able to exercise influence via the ever-so-efficient means of back door aid by our **ratifying** allies), © rather undermines the PR spin on upholding international community values, (d) plays into the hands of our enemies attacks on ‘one-way hypocritical democracy’ and similar phrasing (e) further irritates close allies who increasingly voice frustration with the current administration’s rather one-way conception of cooperation, i.e. my way or the highway thinking dominate in certain quarters. And it does nothing to achieve any changes desired, nor prevent the treaty from coming into force. So, still wondering why Bush ibn Bush is catching flack for yet another amazingly useless and self-indulgent diplomatic blunder? None of this is to say that the ICC _should_ be _ **ratified** _, only that this little maneuver serves no good purpose in national interest. Whereas simply maintaining the signature and participating as a signatory (which as I am sure you know carries no obligations as only ratifying countries are obligated under the treaty) allowed the US to exert a modicum of influence while maintaining valuable appearances in the larger context of our wider interests. However, it appears that self-indulgent neo-isolationist know-nothingism is to carry the day. There, not hard to understand, eh? ---
**Author:** ![Vic\_Ferrari](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/dbc845/32.png) [@Vic\_Ferrari](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Vic_Ferrari)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2002, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-right-to-withdraw-from-the-international-criminal-court/107965/57 "2002-05-10T01:07:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kimstu \* > \*\ ***VF:** \*I don’t think the US Government has any business setting up a court that circumvents the Bill of Rights. \* > > Do we take it that you’re opposed to the recently-established federal special tribunals for terrorism suspects as currently defined, then?\*\* Yes, how about you? ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2002, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-right-to-withdraw-from-the-international-criminal-court/107965/58 "2002-05-10T01:20:39Z")
Further my argument, some selections from a recent Economist (“A world criminal court: Give it a welcome” 11 April 2002) analysis of the situation, lest some of you think this is all some liberal nonsense or something like that. Of course it dem furriners saying this, so take it with a grain of salt if need be > [@](#): > > The court’s creation has opened a rift between the United States and its allies just as the Bush administration seeks co-operation in its war against terrorism and tries to rally support for action against Iraq. > > America has opposed the court ever since the idea was first approved by 120 other countries in 1998 at a United Nations treaty conference in Rome. America’s opposition has hardened under George Bush. Even Bill Clinton, who signed the treaty just before he left office, made it clear he had no intention of ratifying it. He merely wanted, or so he said, to leave Mr Bush the option of keeping America engaged in planning how the court would function. Instead, the Bush administration is apparently choosing to make no attempt to shape the court and its work. As you can see, Clinton’s rationale was to place the US on the inside of the process. I would add that an underlying rationale was help boost US image by at least maintaining the appearances of engagement in an activity which on its face matches US diplomatic rhetoric. As the Economist notes, Bush’s > [@](#): > > attitude is unwise and unnecessary. Even if the court’s design is flawed, as America claims, such flaws can be remedied better through more diplomacy and negotiation than through confrontation. Britain and France, fellow permanent members of the UN Security Council, as well as nearly all America’s other NATO partners, believe the court can be made into a valuable institution. And despite American opposition, they have been willing to push ahead with it much faster than anyone expected, even in the aftermath of September 11th, when their support for America has been at its height. In truth, and contrary to the fears of the administration, the court is not aimed at curbing the legitimate use of force, by America or anyone else. And we have of note the odd confidence of other democracies in the robustness of their own legal systems such that they are not substantially worried about their own being deemed unworthy. And yet, in the US… I also note: > [@](#): > > America’s allies have not been indifferent to its concerns. Indeed, they have done their utmost to meet them. American lawyers and diplomats have played a central role in writing many of the court’s rules and, crucially, the definitions of the crimes it will cover. The court will be able to take up a case only if national courts are unwilling or unable to do so themselves. Its prosecutor will not be able to pursue a case without the agreement of a three-judge panel. The Security Council can suspend any case it believes is misconceived. Other checks and balances make it extremely unlikely that the court will unleash a rogue prosecutor on the world, bringing indictments against American leaders for justifiable actions such as intervening in Afghanistan. America’s NATO allies, themselves participants in the Afghan war and with peacekeeping troops in harm’s way elsewhere, have as much interest as America does in avoiding that outcome. The line on the Security Council is intriguing, although I wonder as to its effective application. Be that as it may, the Economist rightly notes: > [@](#): > > And yet, despite these reassurances, America still has doubts. No one can deny that the court is something of an experiment. _America’s proper response to this uncertainty, though, ought to be not hostility but a wait-and-see neutrality._ If there is a risk, it is a small one. Like the Hague tribunal—a temporary affair set up by the UN with responsibility for Rwanda and ex-Yugoslavia—the new court will have no army or police force of its own, but will rely on national governments, and mostly on the great powers, for much of its evidence and the arrest of suspects. If it acts recklessly, or without widespread international support, it will be ignored. (emphasis added) And I further note as to why this amazingly stupid innovation of annulling the signature harms US interests in re its larger diplomatic image and position; > [@](#): > > A successful court, on the other hand, would embody values of international law and the protection of civilians championed by successive American governments since the second world war. America has been the chief instigator and biggest financial backer of the Hague tribunals.\*\* In fact, it was America’s success in winning support for the creation of those tribunals that persuaded its allies that a permanent criminal court was feasible.\*\* Slobodan Milosevic, Serbia’s former dictator, is now on trial in The Hague only because America first provided the evidence needed to indict him, and then threatened to withhold aid to Serbia if it did not surrender him. Emphasis added, again, it was our own past policy which inspired this and it rather makes the US look hypocritical at best to retract it’s signature. ---
**Author:** ![Saen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d2c977/32.png) [@Saen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saen)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2002, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-right-to-withdraw-from-the-international-criminal-court/107965/59 "2002-05-10T02:54:27Z")
[http://news.crosswalk.com/partner/Article\_Display\_Page/0,,PTID74088|CHID194343|CIID1132390,00.html](http://news.crosswalk.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID74088%7CCHID194343%7CCIID1132390,00.html) > [@](#): > > “This is a treaty that binds third parties,” said Gary T. Dempsey of the Cato Institute. Historically, when two countries sign a treaty, it binds only the countries that sign it, he noted. > > /snip > > Countries that ratify the treaty would be exempt from prosecution for seven years. But countries that do not ratify it will be subject to prosecution right away. > > “It would be U.S. policymakers who would be brought before the court,” said Dempsey. "So if the other the countries sign onto it, there would be an obligation for them to either arrest that individual and try them in their own country or to extradite them to The Hague, where the main court would be. > > “It would create a huge diplomatic nightmare if that happened,” said Dempsey. “I can just imagine an American, a former secretary of state, traveling in France [and being] arrested.” So maybe annuling the signiture is the same kind of symbolism as signing it. Saying we do not support it and will fight it all the way. And also would support something like [The American Servicemembers’ Protection Act](http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/icc/2001/0621usbl.htm) ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2002, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-right-to-withdraw-from-the-international-criminal-court/107965/60 "2002-05-10T02:58:15Z")
An interesting question is whether it’s better to set up a permanent ICC now, or to set up an ad hoc ICC if and when war crimes are committed. There are advantages both ways. Setting it up in advance may help establish moral ground rules that lead to better behavior. OTOH some of the worst-acting countries will not follow ICC procedures anyhow. There’s a real risk that an ICC set up in advance will develop a structure based on theory, which may not be effective in practice when the next truly atrocious events take place. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-right-to-withdraw-from-the-international-criminal-court/107965.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-right-to-withdraw-from-the-international-criminal-court/107965.md?page=4)