U.S. Ratification of the Rome Statute and Its Importance

U.S. Ratification of the Rome Statute and Its Importance

In February of 1999, Kofi Annan, the United Nations Secretary-General told an assembly of international delegates that, “The best chance humankind had ever had to end the culture of impunity was within his grasp (Latore 1).” Annan was referring to the establishment of a permanent court, to be known as the International Criminal Court that would be located in The Hague, Netherlands. The ICC was on the verge of becoming a reality after delegates from around the world drafted the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court (RSICC) after the Rome Conference in June of 1998. Shortly following the conference, 120 Countries had signed the treaty, yet U.S. opposition to various aspects of it led to hesitation from the world’s superpower. The United States vowed not to support an organization that had the ability to put U.S. Military personnel and government officials on trial. Despite many domestic objections, President Clinton did indeed sign the treaty in the eleventh hour, on December 31, 2000, yet made clear that his signature did not submit the U.S. to ICC jurisdiction. He made it obvious that only through Senate Ratification would the United States be a party to the ICC. Due to recent U.S. setbacks in discussions concerning the evolution of the Rome Statute, it is becoming more evident that the U.S. may never ratify the RSICC without serious changes. President George W. Bush recently said that he may even remove the U.S. signature from the Rome Statute. The lack of U.S. participation in the ICC would be both a detriment to U.S. foreign relations, as well as a hindrance to the ICC. The U.S. should ratify the RSICC in order to legitimize the ICC, show its position as an upholder of justice, and to have the ability to influence the evolution of the court and its impact on international law.

Before I discuss the issues of U.S. participation in the ICC, I will begin with the evolution of...