Why the US is going after the International Criminal Court
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has ramped up his criticism of the International Criminal Court in The Hague. His gloves-off approach could have far-reaching
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has ramped up his criticism of the International Criminal Court in The Hague. His gloves-off approach could have far-reaching consequences for the tribunal. In The Hague there are two major international courts that are often confused. One is the UN's International Court of Justice (ICJ), based in the historic Peace Palace, which settles disputes between states. The other is the International Criminal Court (ICC), established in 2002 to prosecute individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Housed in a modern glass-and-concrete building, the ICC has 125 member states — not all 193 UN members. The US, Russia and China are among the countries that have not joined, along with several states in Asia and North Africa. When US Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently threatened to dismantle the court "brick by brick," it was clear he was referring to the ICC. In a statement, the State Department outlined a number of measures Washington is considering as part of its campaign against the court. These include visa restrictions on ICC staff and tougher sanctions targeting the court and affiliated organizations. It also suggested increased scrutiny of countries "that refuse to reject the ICC's illegitimate authority" while continuing to receive US assistance. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has significantly escalated his rhetoric against the ICC Image: Eric Lee/REUTERS The US has clashed with the ICC before. But legal experts around the world say Washington's latest escalation marks a significant shift. How Washington is piling pressure onto The Hague "What the US and Marco Rubio have now essentially done is make public something that has been going on for more than a year.
The US has been using various forms of diplomatic pressure against other countries in an effort to change their positions, and in some cases their voting behavior, toward the ICC," says Andreas Schüller, co-director of the International Crimes and Legal Accountability Program at the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR) in Berlin. "The fact that it is now being declared a campaign shows that it is being pursued strategically, that it is broader in scope, and that other countries — including those that are not ICC members — are also being brought on board to help apply pressure," Schüller told DW. A court to ensure no perpetrator can escape justice The US is not a member of the International Criminal Court, meaning crimes committed on US soil do not fall under its jurisdiction. But the ICC can prosecute alleged atrocities committed in member states — a principle that led, for example, to arrest warrants being issued for Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The ICC has its roots in the lessons of history. The Nuremberg trials after World War II, which put leading Nazi figures on trial, marked the birth of modern international criminal law. After war crimes tribunals were set up in the 1990s following the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and the genocide in Rwanda, calls for a permanent court gained momentum. Birthplace of international criminal law: Hermann Göring, Rudolf Hess, Joachim von Ribbentrop and Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel in the dock at the Nuremberg Trials Image: Judaica-Sammlung Richter/picture alliance For Kai Ambos, an international law expert at the University of Göttingen, the issue comes down to "the fundamental question of accountability" — whether in Ukraine, Iran or Gaza.
The BriefWire