Would the average U.S. citizen object to seeing Saddam Hussein or Slobodon Milosevic prosecuted before an international tribunal and punished for human rights abuses against defenseless Kurds in Northern Iraq or oppressed Albanians in Kosovo? On the other hand, would the average U.S. citizen object to seeing a US military commander prosecuted before an international tribunal for human rights violations associated with military operations against Hussein or Milosevic? That is precisely the question that U.S. political leaders are faced with in deciding whether the United States should submit to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court ("ICC") by ratifying the Treaty known as the Rome Statute ("Treaty"). In short, this paper concludes that the Senate should ratify the Treaty because it is sufficiently deferential to the national judicial systems of the member nation-states. In support of establishing the ICC, this paper examines the provisions of the Statute that are the most applicable to military personnel. Next, it analyzes arguments both in favor of and against the establishment of the Court. Finally, this paper concludes by arguing that the benefits of ratifying the Treaty outweigh the potential exposure of U.S. military personnel to the Court.
University of New Mexico School of Law
Ward, Vincent J.. "The International Criminal Court: Is the Jurisdiction over U.S. Military Personnel Too Broad?." (2001). http://digitalrepository.unm.edu/law_studentscholarship/29