Challenge : Have the US recognise the International Court

It's close to ASB since the US nationals would face an array of arrests, which also include the military. How can the US be left-wing enough to recognise the ICC ? Is there any possible chance ?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
No.


This is as close to ASB as it gets since it would require something on the order of a Yellowstone super-eruption or an asteroid strike.
 
No.


This is as close to ASB as it gets since it would require something on the order of a Yellowstone super-eruption or an asteroid strike.

What if another country's forces commit war crimes against US troops, and said country is too big, powerful, and cunning for the US to bully in order to hand over the suspects (or the US public is afraid of the costs of an outright invasion/occupation)? The west imposes sanctions on the country, but this only results in a surge of patriotism.

Then, there's a regime change in the former enemy country. As part of a deal to normalize relations with the west, the former enemy agrees to hand over the suspect to the ICC if the US recognizes it. The crime has entered the American consciousness so "something has to be done", but there is zero appetite to confronting the new regime. The US then joins, with the understanding the ICC will have no retroactive jurisdiction.
 
What if another country's forces commit war crimes against US troops, and said country is too big, powerful, and cunning for the US to bully in order to hand over the suspects (or the US public is afraid of the costs of an outright invasion/occupation)? The west imposes sanctions on the country, but this only results in a surge of patriotism.

Then, there's a regime change in the former enemy country. As part of a deal to normalize relations with the west, the former enemy agrees to hand over the suspect to the ICC if the US recognizes it. The crime has entered the American consciousness so "something has to be done", but there is zero appetite to confronting the new regime. The US then joins, with the understanding the ICC will have no retroactive jurisdiction.

The only countries that could even possibly fill this roll are the Soviet Union when it still existed and modern China. But neither of these would ever act in a way that would be war crimes because it would be nuclear war and no one wants that. Also the Soviets were already separate mostly from the western economies and China is entirely dependent on trade with the west to keep itself from having massive problems.
 
I agree with CalBear - ASB. You'd sen warrants out on US politicians, military men etc. Unfortunately the court like many other institutions is set up so any one of a number of countries with a political axe to grind can get a warrant out. It's a nice idea but the practicality is minimal, look at how long the prosecutions of obvious criminals from the Bosnia mess took.
 
As I remember, we first participated with the ICJ regarding Nicaragua, and then when they said we couldn't mine the harbors, withdrew from participation. And this during the Reagan administration.
 
You'd sen warrants out on US politicians, military men etc. Unfortunately the court like many other institutions is set up so any one of a number of countries with a political axe to grind can get a warrant out.

theoretically, that would work both ways, wouldn't it? Sure, other nations could bombard us with stupid warrants, but couldn't we do the same? None of which seems to make it a good idea for the US to join it in the first place...
 
While the US could "bombard" with stupid warrants (ICC) the countries that would do that to the US/politicians/military are not terribly "exposed" to problems. Terrorist leaders, dictators etc don't usually travel to places where they might be arrested. As far as individual low level operatives, most countries that might play this game are more than happy to let soldiers etc hang out to dry - as opposed to the USA where seeing some junior officer or enlisted man incarcerated for years while the process goes on would not be tolerable. You could also see warrants where and entire unit (a company, a battalion, a division) is accused or war crimes with literally thousands of people now being unable to leave the USA without fear of being taken in to custody. This of course would disrupt any US military operations, as well as severely mess up lives.
 
It's not a left wing America that you need, but one that doesn't have a bloated military that goes around the world proving the old adage "when all you have is a hammer..."

Now granted, a left wing America would help that, but the real POD is a multipolar world where the US is not considered global policeman.

Try Uniting Europe, or at least France and Britain in the 40s or 50s.
 
I agree with CalBear - ASB. You'd sen warrants out on US politicians, military men etc.

I strongly doubt it. If you look at what the Court has actually done, it's started a relative handful of investigations that have usually dragged on for some time with no warrants or other documents being issued, and quite often been dropped for some reason or another even if there are clear issues at hand, sometimes on technicalities (as with their 'investigation' into Palestine, which they steered well clear of the whole mess by deciding that Palestine isn't a state and can't refer crimes). They haven't actually charged anyone at all except in Africa (the cases you refer to involving Bosnia were actually the charge of a different, special-purpose tribunal). They clearly aren't out to screw around with the rich and powerful of the world, because they just haven't touched those of them that fall in their jurisdiction.

If the United States actually did join ICC, probably a few countries would refer cases to the Court, investigators would poke around for a little while, and then they would pack up and go home without charging anyone. I don't see any British, French, or Australian politicians in the docket there, for instance, despite all three countries being members of the court and involving themselves in just as many controversial actions as the United States. It wouldn't make much of a difference one way or the other.

Now, as far as actually getting the United States to join an 'ICC,' Booster Gold has his finger on it. You need the United States to be more isolationist, so it sees such a court as being in its foreign policy interests as a tool to use against other countries. The easiest and probably best way to do this is to remove Hitler and militaristic Japan, so that the United States remains turned relatively inwards as it was in the 1920s and 1930s. Such a court may still be proposed eventually along the lines of the already existing International Court of Justice, particularly if some dictator starts doing nasty things without people stopping him or her first.
 

jahenders

Banned
I think the only chance before now is for the court to be structured differently so the US has a veto of sorts (like the old UN council).

Failing that, we do have an ever greater chorus of "we should cooperate with the world's views" mindset -- Obama, some on SCOTUS, lots of academics, and various other loons.

It's close to ASB since the US nationals would face an array of arrests, which also include the military. How can the US be left-wing enough to recognise the ICC ? Is there any possible chance ?
 
Top