I have one serious concern about the court.
"The International Criminal Court is a separate entity from the United Nations." It is permanent, and, if it is going to function, it must have an authority higher than nations themselves. Any permanent body has the potential to increase its powers over time. This includes those bodies that are formed with the intention of severely limited power (see the history of the U.S. government). The ICC does have the intention to grow in power.
As it stands, the court will "try war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, and, eventually, the crime of aggression."
Other crimes may be added, such as terrorism and drug trafficking.
As to whether or not the U.S. should be concerned, I cannot say with any certainty without reading further. It should be noted, however, that the U.S. has military alliances with 36 countries all over the world. As a consequence, the potential is greater that our soldiers may be subject to the tribunal. I can't see any real reason to be worried about it, though, as long as the tribunal doesn't become more and more powerful over time. I mean, if a U.S. soldier commits a war crime, he ought to be held responsible for it. Nobody's saying that's not so. And we shouldn't even be subject to it, anyway, if "the Court can only exercise its jurisdiction when a national court is unable or unwilling to genuinely do so itself." |
