| In response to a heightening concern for international justice, in the late 1990's in Rome, Italy over 160 countries deliberated on the most suitable approach to an international standard dealing with war crimes, crimes of aggression, crimes against humanity and genocide. In reference to the International Criminal Court's jurisdiction, these four crimes have come to be termed "core crimes." Although the culmination was the establishment of the ICC a variety of countries stood against such an establishment and fought to weaken the Court's jurisdictional reach. The United States of America took center stage during the deliberations in Rome as one of these countries, voting against the Court with such infamous human rights abusers as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran, among others. Determined to undermine the Court's ability to threaten national sovereignty the U.S. even went so far as to pass legislation enabling it to invade The Hague upon the possible arrest of any U.S. military representative. Despite U.S. objections though, the Court operates as a new standard for international justice and labors to hold war criminals accountable. Further, among the various movements, standards and ad hoc tribunals, the ICC stands alone as the first permanent international judicial composition with universal jurisdiction over core crimes. With the Court having a direct affect on international human rights standards and accountability, as well as being an important leader through its role on the global stage, this paper will detail the history of the aforementioned movements as well as their influence on the ICC's creation. Further, the U.S. objections and reaction to the Court will be summarized and responded to with the conclusion that U.S. interests would be served by both signing and ratifying the Rome Treaty. Whereas a denial of ICC jurisdiction over core crimes seemingly protects national sovereignty, the same denial undermines the U.S. position of leadership in the world theatre. Finally, although more difficult to quantify, undermining the position of U.S. leadership in this manner invariably creates a far more dangerous threat to U.S. national sovereignty than does allowing the ICC to exercise complementary jurisdiction over the core crimes. |
