There’s been a lot written about how terrible it would be if the ICC activated its jurisdiction over the crime of aggression. Members of the U.S. Congress, the Heritage Foundation, the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Goldstone, Harold Koh, and the Wall Street Journal have all come out against it.
They’re wrong.
Read my piece at Foreign Policy in Focus to find out why. The piece specifically critiques the Council on Foreign Relations report. Here’s a teaser:
The recent Council on Foreign Relations report “From Rome to Kampala: The U.S. Approach to the 2010 International Criminal Court Review Conference” tells one side of a complex story. The author Vijay Padmanabhan asserts that the “United States has historically been the leader in international justice efforts,” but now must oppose the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) endeavor to activate its power to prosecute crimes of aggression.
Why the need for a sudden change in U.S. policy? Actually, there has been no change. The United States has consistently tried to evade international jurisdiction and control the way it is imposed on others. By skirting this central fact, Padmanabhan misses the ways that this U.S. policy falls short. In particular, he overlooks how an aggression-prosecuting ICC, even if it prosecutes U.S. leaders, could serve U.S. security interests.
