Reaction to ICC essays

Reaction to ICC essays The chief argument by the US not to ratify the Rome Statute is the endangerment of its troops as the primary contributor to peacekeeping-peacebuilding operations worldwide. An underlying preoccupation to this postulate is the ever-present American concern not to be allowed to exercise its own jurisdiction/sovereignty in its decision making processes. This may come precisely out of democratic concerns deeply embedded in the American frame of mind. When one speaks of the success of an international tribunal (or for that matter any international endeavor that requires cooperation), one might think that the concurrence of the world Hegemon would be needed in order to ensure such cooperation. One fundamental example related to international justice comes to mind: The ICJ. Since it began functioning in 1946, the ICJ had gained progressive support from the international community and a similarly progressive number of disputes were being submitted to it. Particularly, the Courts docket seeme d to expand since it demonstrated that it was willing to rule against the US in the Nicaragua Case. However, it appears paradoxical that, consequentially, the US denounced its application for the Courts compulsory jurisdiction and ultimately did not comply with a ruling manifestly contrary to its interests. As the US cooperation with the court it so endeavored to create, so it grew the support of other countries towards it. This observation may be contrary to our initial remark; nonetheless a distinction must be made between the more contested nature of the interests at play before the ICJ and the more straight forward issue of punishment for international crimes before the ICC. An argument might also be made as to the doubtful effectiveness of international tribunals in achieving the deterrent goals for which they were created, and which their advocates preach as ultimate achievement of the preexistent tribunals in the international realm. One could...