The International Criminal Court: Flawed and Dangerous

The information available about the ICC leads one to oppose its formation and its activities. The ICC is a body that would only serve to infringe on national sovereignty with no perceptible gain. National sovereignty would be sacrificed for a misguided international goal focusing on punishment, which doesn’t help the dead, in places of moves towards more preventive measures. The formation of a ICC in its current, ambiguous, state would likely leads to its failure signifying a “green light” to all leaders with genocidal goals. Despite the best of intentions the ICC, if adapted as outlined in the Rome Statute, would represent a huge setback in genocide and war crime prevention.

As with any international act, national sovereignty would be sacrificed if the Rome Statute were adapted. This is not an inherent evil for frequently the benefits gained from the transfer outweigh the costs; this is, however, not the case with the Rome Statute. The proposed ICC offers no additional benefits, but comes at a very real cost. The current, ad-hoc system of prosecuting war criminals, such as the trials in Germany, Rwanda, and Yugoslavia, are sufficient if imperfect. A permanent ICC creates a less situation-specific court and consequently more likely to fail by attempting to prosecute cases unlikely to result in victory.

The wording of the Rome Statute is troublingly vague, and national sovereignty should not be abdicated to such an unclear document. This unclear wording could result in frivolous charges against parties acting for the larger good. The wording of section Article 28, section A of the Rome Statute is particularly upsetting. It states that military commanders will be held accountable if

“(i) That military commander or person either knew or, owing to the circumstances at the time, should have known that the forces were committing or about to commit such crimes; and (ii) That military commander or person failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures within his or her power to prevent or repress their commission or to submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution.”

Vague wording such as “should have known” and “all necessary and reasonable” lack any sort of absolute standards that should be present in a legal document such as the Rome Statute, and would open up virtually all military personal to potential trial. Additionally, Article 8.2.b of the Rome statute states:

“(iv) Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;”