An Analysis of the Merits and Demerits of UN Membership to the ICC

This essay examines the multifaceted relationship between the United Nations and the International Criminal Court (ICC), delving into the merits and demerits of UN membership. It begins by outlining the ICC's role as a permanent global court prosecuting severe international crimes like genocide and war crimes, highlighting its establishment in the wake of atrocities in the 20th century. The essay discusses the historical context of the ICC, including the UN's involvement in establishing ad hoc tribunals. It then explores the perspectives of the United States, detailing its concerns regarding the ICC's jurisdiction, potential political influence, and impact on national sovereignty. The essay further analyzes the pros and cons of US association with the ICC, including its potential to enforce international law and the counterarguments regarding constitutional principles and individual rights. The essay also considers the impact of countries withdrawing from the ICC and concludes by emphasizing the importance of the UN's role in upholding international standards and integrating with the ICC to enhance liberal standards and constituent republic.

Running Head : Merits and Demerits of United Nation’s membership to International Criminal
Court
MERIT AND DEMERITS OF UNITED NATION’S MEMBERSHIP TO INTERNATIONAL
CRIMINAL COURT
Student’s name
Course name and number
Instructor’s name
Date submitted

1Merits and Demerits of United Nation’s membership to International Criminal Court
The International Criminal Court is a permanent worldwide law court which is situated
for prosecution, investigation and also to try entities who are charged with severe crimes to the
global community which involves genocide crimes, crime committed against humankind,
warfare crimes and the offence of aggression (Politi, 2017). In the twentieth century, some grave
offences were taken place during the war. During that period crime committed in violation of
international legislation remain unconvicted. In the year 1948, the convention was established for
the Punishment and Protection of the offence of Genocide was implemented, the general
assembly of the United Nations realised the necessity for establishing a worldwide international
court of law to deal with violence. The concept for creating global criminal justice come back
after the Cold war. While negotiating the rule of International Criminal Court were ongoing in
the United Nations, there is a commission of the serious crime in the nation of Rwanda and
Yugoslavia which is experienced by the whole world. The ad hoc court was established by the
united nation to eliminate violence and to combat the situation.
The United States supported the principles of human rights and contended that one who
cause violation of human rights should be responsible for his action. The United nation has
functioned a significant role in advocating attempt made worldwide in the field of worldwide
humanitarian legislation such as Conventions of Geneva. In 2002 The International Criminal
Tribunal was situated which is ratified by 60 countries. According to the administrators of
United States, the statute of Rome created a severe lacking in not establishing judicious
protections against party-political influences, holding comprehensive authority in absence of
responsibility to the Security Council of United Nations and infringes nationwide independence
by appealing jurisdictions over regional and military staffs states who is not party of United

2Merits and Demerits of United Nation’s membership to International Criminal Court
nations in some situations (Vinjamuri, 2016). These matters led President Bill Clinton to request
President George W. Bush not to ratify the treaty for advice to the Senate and approval which is
necessary for authorisation. Several comprehensive efforts were adopted to change the
legislation for addressing the critical principles of the United Nations but all attempts went in
vain. That led President Bush to realise that it is essential to unsign the statute of Rome by
officially provide notification to the Secretary-General of United Nations that United Nation did
not aim to approve the treaty and was not obliged to abide international law which is created to
evade action that went contrary to the aim and determination of convention. Thus the United
States took several measures to safeguard their officials from the International court of law
entitlement of jurisdiction.
The pros for the United States to be associate of the International Criminal Court was that
it would stand effective policy as all nations came beneath the same authority to curb the
commitment of heinous crimes. If the law of the land is identical in all countries that take part
and approve the policy of United Nations, then there would be no longer swing in the sentence
and the decision of all states who are part of United Nations in dealing with the crimes would
come more rapidly (Wijesinghe, 2018). The cons for the United Nations to be part of
International Criminal Tribunal involves it went against the central trust of the Constitution of
the United States and privileges of individual who resides in the United States. The society
requires to reconsider the grounds on which the United States is built up and trial proceedings
would be exposed more to exploitation rather than legal evidence which is applied against the
individuals.
The United States has situated upon the principles of trust in its policy. If the United
States is part of the International Criminal Court, the structure became stronger. The member of

3Merits and Demerits of United Nation’s membership to International Criminal Court
United Nation follows most of the necessities laid down in International Criminal Tribunal. If the
United States link with worldwide criminal tribunal then it will entertain government officers
with command means those who are usually excused from prosecution. There is an old proverb
which says the organisation will die if the head of the organisation is taken off (Bower, 2015).
That means the group of the official who holds the dominion position and misusing their powers,
if their powers are curtailed then only the society will able to subsist corruption-free.
The United States advocated the establishment of international tribunal to act against the
gross violation of human rights (Groenleer, 2015). The United nation concluded that there are
severe flaws in the institution that judicious deficit safeguards as against political exploitation
holds sweeping ability without answerability to the Security Council of the United Nations and
also infringes national dominion by asking for jurisdiction over residents of non-party states
(Vilmer, 2016). The reason for Russia withdrawing the International Court is that it had
convicted Russia for violating human rights in Crimea. Three countries moving back from
International Court were South Africa, Burundi and Gambia. According to Gambia minister, the
court was existed to oppress individuals in the continent of Africa.
The United States membership in the International court implies the loss of trust in the
organisation. It exposes the conviction of military who commit offence during the war. This
indicated pushing the military forces towards danger. The proof on whether the policy of
democratisation enhances the threat of war is mixed opinion The United Nation should intend to
improve liberal standards and constituent republic by amalgamation with the International court.

4Merits and Demerits of United Nation’s membership to International Criminal Court
References
Bower, A. (2015). Arguing with law: strategic legal argumentation, US diplomacy, and debates
over the International Criminal Court. Review of International Studies, 41(2), 337-360.
Groenleer, M. (2015). The United States, the European Union, and the International Criminal
Court: Similar values, different interests?. International journal of constitutional
law, 13(4), 923-944.
Politi, M. (2017). The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: a challenge to impunity.
Routledge.
Vilmer, J. B. J. (2016). The African Union and the International Criminal Court: counteracting
the crisis. International Affairs, 92(6), 1319-1342.
Vinjamuri, L. (2016). The international criminal court and the paradox of authority. Law &
Contemp. Probs., 79, 275.
Wijesinghe, S. S. (2018). Is the jurisdiction of International Criminal Court an extension of
national criminal jurisdiction? Some dilemmas. Junior Bar Law Journal, 10, 205-210.