First is the idea that when the UN chose to place its HQ in New York, the US likely had to agree to safe passage for all diplomats and officials going to the General Assembly. That just makes sense. The UN can’t function if the Host Nation gets to control who goes to the meetings.
Second, the US isn’t a party to the ICC in the first place, and doesn’t formally recognize its jurisdiction. IMO, this is actually the correct position, because the ICC as it is currently run does not guarantee all the protections that US courts grant its citizens, so the US could not subject its citizens to it. (Even Bill Clinton, who signed the treaty at first, acknowledged this and did not send the treaty to the Senate for ratification. George W Bush “un-signed” the treaty a few years later).
So, it really would be impossible for a local police force to arrest a foreign leader with diplomatic immunity on the warrant of a court which is not recognized by the government.
The USA doesn’t recognise the ICC because they do not want their citizens to be subjected to it. There are quotes from senior officials and diplomats essentially saying that the USA agrees with the concept of the ICC but only for lawless countries where people who violate international law are unlikely to be held to account. Essentially it is a humdinger of an example of “rules for thee but not for me” creedo. The US hides behind its UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) as a panacea excusing it from subjecting itself to the rules it wants to enforce on the rest of the world. The argument is that the UCMJ is sufficient to enforce accountability and international law, and that the ICC is superfluous. It’s a tenuous argument at best and ultimately shelters the USDF from international accountability for their actions.
There are legitimate concerns about American participation in the ICC:
the US Constitution guarantees jury trials for major offenses, and the ICC doesn’t use them
the US Constitution states that the US Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over all other courts, and there is no room for an international court to fit in that structure
US courts claim jurisdiction over US citizens who commit crimes on US soil, and there is no mechanism to insert the ICC into that.
So it’s not just that the US doesn’t want to play nice, there are things in the structure of the ICC that violate the US Constitution. Those contradictions would have to be resolved before the US can join, either by changing the ICC or changing the US Constitution.
I’m pretty sure that’s the same in most other countries, at the very least the highest court jurisdiction, yet somehow they were able to still be part of the ICC
There are two reasons he can’t do anything.
First is the idea that when the UN chose to place its HQ in New York, the US likely had to agree to safe passage for all diplomats and officials going to the General Assembly. That just makes sense. The UN can’t function if the Host Nation gets to control who goes to the meetings.
Second, the US isn’t a party to the ICC in the first place, and doesn’t formally recognize its jurisdiction. IMO, this is actually the correct position, because the ICC as it is currently run does not guarantee all the protections that US courts grant its citizens, so the US could not subject its citizens to it. (Even Bill Clinton, who signed the treaty at first, acknowledged this and did not send the treaty to the Senate for ratification. George W Bush “un-signed” the treaty a few years later).
So, it really would be impossible for a local police force to arrest a foreign leader with diplomatic immunity on the warrant of a court which is not recognized by the government.
The USA doesn’t recognise the ICC because they do not want their citizens to be subjected to it. There are quotes from senior officials and diplomats essentially saying that the USA agrees with the concept of the ICC but only for lawless countries where people who violate international law are unlikely to be held to account. Essentially it is a humdinger of an example of “rules for thee but not for me” creedo. The US hides behind its UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) as a panacea excusing it from subjecting itself to the rules it wants to enforce on the rest of the world. The argument is that the UCMJ is sufficient to enforce accountability and international law, and that the ICC is superfluous. It’s a tenuous argument at best and ultimately shelters the USDF from international accountability for their actions.
There are legitimate concerns about American participation in the ICC:
the US Constitution guarantees jury trials for major offenses, and the ICC doesn’t use them
the US Constitution states that the US Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over all other courts, and there is no room for an international court to fit in that structure
US courts claim jurisdiction over US citizens who commit crimes on US soil, and there is no mechanism to insert the ICC into that.
So it’s not just that the US doesn’t want to play nice, there are things in the structure of the ICC that violate the US Constitution. Those contradictions would have to be resolved before the US can join, either by changing the ICC or changing the US Constitution.
I’m pretty sure that’s the same in most other countries, at the very least the highest court jurisdiction, yet somehow they were able to still be part of the ICC