BUSH ISSUES FORMAL REJECTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

The court would force the US and other western nations to forfeit sovereignty and traditional due process

WASHINGTON, May 6, 2002 (LSN.ca) - The establishment of the International Criminal Court seemed like a done deal last month after the treaty received the minimum 60 signatures from ratifying countries that delegates originally decided was necessary before moving forward with the controversial judiciary. Progress may be severally hindered now, however, with the announcement Sunday that American President George Bush will not allow it to be ratified by the United States Senate. "We think it was a mistake to have signed it," an administration official said. "We have said we will not submit it to the Senate for ratification."

Officials also said that the Bush Administration’s renunciation of the ICC treaty means the United States will not recognize the court's jurisdiction and will not submit to any of its orders. Additionally, it will assert its refusal to be bound by the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which outlines the obligations of nations to obey other international treaties. “Article 18 of the Vienna Convention requires signatory nations like the United States to refrain from taking steps to undermine treaties they sign, even if they do not ratify them,” noted the New York Times.

The Bush Administration is sending a formal notice to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan today. According to CNN, it reads, in part, "This is to inform you, in connection with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court ... the United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty," the letter says. "Accordingly, the United States has no legal obligation arising from its signature."

Despite the decision by the U.S., the ICC will begin operating next year in The Hague. Its integrity and its ability to function with authority are in question, however, in light of America’s rejection of the court. The ICC will become the first new international judicial body since the International Court of Justice, or World Court, was created in 1945.

Pro-lifers have long been concerned about the ICC because of the influence of pro-abortion and anti-family forces in the development of the court as well as the use of ambiguous definitions that could give the court the ability to impose and enforce such things as the legalization of abortion in all countries. Many other concerns also exist, including the threat to national sovereignty, the lack of accountability and the failure to incorporate fundamental principles of western jurisprudence which originate from the Judeo-Christian approach to justice. John Bolton, America’s under secretary of state for arms control, for example, noted that “the court would force the United States to forfeit some of its sovereignty and unique concept of due process to a foreign and possibly unrestrained prosecutor.”

The rejection of the ICC should not have come as a surprise. Secretary of State Colin Powell signaled the Bush Administration’s opposition already on February 14 last year when he said that "the United States in the Bush Administration does not support the International Criminal Court. President Clinton signed the treaty, but we have no plans to send it forward to our Senate for ratification."

ICC advocates are predictably outraged at the Bush Administration. What they are going to do about its decision, however, remains to be seen. Hostile reaction from around the world following the U.S. President’s rejection of the questionable Kyoto accord and other international commitments didn’t produce the desired response. David Scheffer, who signed the treaty for the Clinton administration, said that “withdrawing the signature exceeded even the actions of the Reagan administration, which in 1987 decided it would not seek ratification of an amendment to the Geneva Conventions that the Carter administration had signed,” reported the New York Times. "There has never been an attempt to literally remove the document," he said. He also tried to generate fear by alleging that "the perception will be that the United States walked away from international justice and forfeited its leadership role. … It will be a dramatic moment in international legal history."

Former President Bill Clinton, however, when he signed the Rome Statute (which establishes the ICC) also stated that he did not intend to submit it in its present form to the Senate for ratification. The stated position of the last administration is, therefore, not as far apart from that of President Bush, although the mainstream media and other ICC proponents will undoubtedly paint a different picture. Colin Powell countered the allegations that rejecting the ICC would be seen as a rejection of justice. He said the United States has "the highest standards of accountability of any nation on the face of the Earth. We are the leader in the world with respect to bringing people to justice. We supported the tribunal for Yugoslavia, the tribunal for Rwanda, trying to get the tribunal for Sierra Leone set up."
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2002/may/020506a.html
See:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/05/05/interna tional.criminal.court/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/05/intern ational/05TRIB.html?todaysheadlines
(one-time free subscription required)
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles /2002/5/5/130406.shtml
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-311.html
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT UNDERMINES CANADIAN RIGHTS
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2000/sep/000 914a.html
UK RATIFIES INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2001/oct/011 00201.html
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT APPROVED
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/1998/jul/980 719b.html