The Bush administration has opposed the International Criminal Court on a number of grounds, including fears that the United States will get bogged down in everybody and their brother charging it with human rights violations right and left. Supporters of the ICC have generally dismissed that claim, saying that the court is only for the sort of violations of international law that would be difficult if not impossible to prosecute otherwise.
So now that the ICC has had its prosecutor and judges in place for a month, how does the world perceive the court’s role? The BBC ran an article last week on the court noting that so far it has received almost 500 complaints to be investigated. Of those,
. . . nearly 40 communications accused the United States and its allies of aggression against Iraq.
The crime of aggression is in the treaty but until there is international agreement on how to define it, the ICC can take no action.
So one month into the court’s existence, and 8 percent of the complaints received so far were directed at the U.S. war in Iraq (this despite the fact that neither the U.S. nor Iraq ratified the treaty creating the court and so are not included in its jurisdiction).
Source:
ICC to exclude many cases. Barnaby Mason, The BBC, July 16, 2003.