Quote:
Originally Posted by Moejoe
It's dumfounding, I just can't get it through my head why any country would opt out. I really can't imagine any possible reason why they would do this.
|
"The obvious concern, which has been expressed by many
American politicians and commentators, is that American
troops travel all over the globe, including areas where Americans
are not popular. We do not want to see our men and women
put on trial before an international tribunal every time they
offend a local group. Most efforts by ICC officials to appease
American concerns have addressed this issue.
There is, however, another basic concern about the ICC
that is too often overlooked. Part of the American resistance
to the ICC stems from the judicially-mandated growth in
the size and authority of the U.S. federal government that
has come at the expense of state autonomy. The American
experience reveals that an active federal judiciary leads to a
larger central government. If we now imagine an active world
court, it is easy to envision a centralization of global power that
is unprecedented in history. To many Americans, that is not a
welcome development. In short, American opposition to the
ICC is based in significant part on courts’ failure to adhere to
the doctrine of federalism....
An international court with the express authorization to
modify customary international law has extraordinary power.
Consider the Constitution of the United States. Judges have
used that document to create new rights that do not appear in
the text of that document. What is to stop ICC judges from
inventing new crimes, new rights, or otherwise trampling on
national sovereignty?
With 18 judges (balanced in terms of gender, geography,
and legal systems) and a potentially slow docket, there is
every reason to think that ICC judges will be pressured to
add new crimes. Following the attack of September 11, 2001
representatives from the nation of Turkey proposed adding the
crime of terrorism to the ICC’s jurisdiction. There have also
been proposals to add international drug transactions to the list
of ICC crimes. Suppose ICC judges conclude that denial of
the right to euthanasia constitutes a violation of human rights?
Or what if they find that a society must recognize the right to
same-sex marriage or outlaw the death penalty? Regardless of
how members of a society feel about such issues, does anyone
really want international judges to decide these issues for all
nations?"
That's one analysis of it, the full text can be found
here.
It's more of that American world-view. We fought a war for independence.....we don't intend to give it up anytime soon.