SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Refugees form Ukraine walk to the Polish border on March 1, 2022. (Photo: Jana Cavojska/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)
To Help Get Justice for Ukrainians, the US Needs to Stop Undermining the ICC
Like Russia, the United States itself refuses to join the court. And that could make it more difficult to get justice for Ukrainians.
Apr 22, 2022
As Russia's war in Ukraine continues, human rights groups have gathered evidence of Russian atrocities against civilians--including executions, rapes, and mass murder. These are war crimes, President Biden asserted recently, adding that Russian President Vladimir Putin "should be held accountable."
Biden is right.
The U.S. now has an opportunity to reset its contentious relationship with the ICC--and the global rule of law more broadly.
Russia's crimes in Ukraine clearly violate the laws of war enshrined under the Geneva Conventions as well as the UN Charter, which prohibits wars of aggression. The International Criminal Court, or ICC, has already opened an investigation into Russia's alleged crimes in Ukraine.
The U.S. wants to support the move, but there's one big problem: Like Russia, the United States itself refuses to join the court. And that could make it more difficult to get justice for Ukrainians.
National courts would ideally prosecute the perpetrators of international crimes. But when states prove unable or unwilling to prosecute them--including for political reasons--the ICC has stood as the court of last resort.
Established in 2002 by the Rome Statute, the ICC has 123 member states where it can investigate and prosecute crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and state acts of aggression. (Ukraine has also not formally joined the court, but has submitted to its jurisdiction in the past.)
International courts have long played an important role in pursuing justice--and the larger fight against impunity under international law.
After World War II, the prominent Nuremberg trials, led by the U.S. and allied powers, prosecuted Nazi war criminals. The U.S. has also backed international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Sierra Leone, which have held high-ranking individuals accountable for terrible crimes.
But what happens when a state is too powerful to be bound by international courts?
The problem isn't the absence of law but rather its breakdown, when states refuse to comply and aren't held accountable. This can further inflame conflicts. The resulting pattern of war, displacement, and rampant human rights violations we're seeing in Ukraine has tragically become all too familiar.
But it's not just Russia.
When President Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statute, he advised against U.S. ratification out of concern that the court could assert jurisdiction over U.S. officials and servicemembers. President George W. Bush then famously "unsigned" the Rome Statute less than one year before his illegal invasion of Iraq.
The Trump administration went so far as to sanction ICC prosecutors who were investigating possible U.S. crimes in Afghanistan.
The U.S. now has an opportunity to reset its contentious relationship with the ICC--and the global rule of law more broadly.
A resolution now in Congress, introduced by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), calls for the U.S. to join the ICC. Another resolution would repeal a 2002 law that prohibits U.S. support for ICC investigations. Enacting both would bolster the court's effectiveness through greater U.S. involvement and show that the U.S. is serious about international criminal justice.
Ultimately, no country should stand in the way of accountability and remedy for victims of conflict, whether in Ukraine, Palestine, Yemen, or elsewhere. That includes the United States, which must also reckon with its own crimes committed during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
"We cannot successfully cooperate with the rest of the world in establishing a reign of law," warned Robert H. Jackson, the chief U.S. prosecutor at Nuremberg, "unless we are prepared to have that law sometimes operate against what would be our national advantage."
Law alone won't deliver global justice. But if we want fewer wars, more diplomacy, and more international cooperation, then no country can remain above it.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
This column was distributed by OtherWords.
Farrah Hassen
Farrah Hassen, J.D., is a writer, policy analyst, and adjunct professor in the Department of Political Science at Cal Poly Pomona
As Russia's war in Ukraine continues, human rights groups have gathered evidence of Russian atrocities against civilians--including executions, rapes, and mass murder. These are war crimes, President Biden asserted recently, adding that Russian President Vladimir Putin "should be held accountable."
Biden is right.
The U.S. now has an opportunity to reset its contentious relationship with the ICC--and the global rule of law more broadly.
Russia's crimes in Ukraine clearly violate the laws of war enshrined under the Geneva Conventions as well as the UN Charter, which prohibits wars of aggression. The International Criminal Court, or ICC, has already opened an investigation into Russia's alleged crimes in Ukraine.
The U.S. wants to support the move, but there's one big problem: Like Russia, the United States itself refuses to join the court. And that could make it more difficult to get justice for Ukrainians.
National courts would ideally prosecute the perpetrators of international crimes. But when states prove unable or unwilling to prosecute them--including for political reasons--the ICC has stood as the court of last resort.
Established in 2002 by the Rome Statute, the ICC has 123 member states where it can investigate and prosecute crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and state acts of aggression. (Ukraine has also not formally joined the court, but has submitted to its jurisdiction in the past.)
International courts have long played an important role in pursuing justice--and the larger fight against impunity under international law.
After World War II, the prominent Nuremberg trials, led by the U.S. and allied powers, prosecuted Nazi war criminals. The U.S. has also backed international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Sierra Leone, which have held high-ranking individuals accountable for terrible crimes.
But what happens when a state is too powerful to be bound by international courts?
The problem isn't the absence of law but rather its breakdown, when states refuse to comply and aren't held accountable. This can further inflame conflicts. The resulting pattern of war, displacement, and rampant human rights violations we're seeing in Ukraine has tragically become all too familiar.
But it's not just Russia.
When President Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statute, he advised against U.S. ratification out of concern that the court could assert jurisdiction over U.S. officials and servicemembers. President George W. Bush then famously "unsigned" the Rome Statute less than one year before his illegal invasion of Iraq.
The Trump administration went so far as to sanction ICC prosecutors who were investigating possible U.S. crimes in Afghanistan.
The U.S. now has an opportunity to reset its contentious relationship with the ICC--and the global rule of law more broadly.
A resolution now in Congress, introduced by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), calls for the U.S. to join the ICC. Another resolution would repeal a 2002 law that prohibits U.S. support for ICC investigations. Enacting both would bolster the court's effectiveness through greater U.S. involvement and show that the U.S. is serious about international criminal justice.
Ultimately, no country should stand in the way of accountability and remedy for victims of conflict, whether in Ukraine, Palestine, Yemen, or elsewhere. That includes the United States, which must also reckon with its own crimes committed during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
"We cannot successfully cooperate with the rest of the world in establishing a reign of law," warned Robert H. Jackson, the chief U.S. prosecutor at Nuremberg, "unless we are prepared to have that law sometimes operate against what would be our national advantage."
Law alone won't deliver global justice. But if we want fewer wars, more diplomacy, and more international cooperation, then no country can remain above it.
Farrah Hassen
Farrah Hassen, J.D., is a writer, policy analyst, and adjunct professor in the Department of Political Science at Cal Poly Pomona
As Russia's war in Ukraine continues, human rights groups have gathered evidence of Russian atrocities against civilians--including executions, rapes, and mass murder. These are war crimes, President Biden asserted recently, adding that Russian President Vladimir Putin "should be held accountable."
Biden is right.
The U.S. now has an opportunity to reset its contentious relationship with the ICC--and the global rule of law more broadly.
Russia's crimes in Ukraine clearly violate the laws of war enshrined under the Geneva Conventions as well as the UN Charter, which prohibits wars of aggression. The International Criminal Court, or ICC, has already opened an investigation into Russia's alleged crimes in Ukraine.
The U.S. wants to support the move, but there's one big problem: Like Russia, the United States itself refuses to join the court. And that could make it more difficult to get justice for Ukrainians.
National courts would ideally prosecute the perpetrators of international crimes. But when states prove unable or unwilling to prosecute them--including for political reasons--the ICC has stood as the court of last resort.
Established in 2002 by the Rome Statute, the ICC has 123 member states where it can investigate and prosecute crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and state acts of aggression. (Ukraine has also not formally joined the court, but has submitted to its jurisdiction in the past.)
International courts have long played an important role in pursuing justice--and the larger fight against impunity under international law.
After World War II, the prominent Nuremberg trials, led by the U.S. and allied powers, prosecuted Nazi war criminals. The U.S. has also backed international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Sierra Leone, which have held high-ranking individuals accountable for terrible crimes.
But what happens when a state is too powerful to be bound by international courts?
The problem isn't the absence of law but rather its breakdown, when states refuse to comply and aren't held accountable. This can further inflame conflicts. The resulting pattern of war, displacement, and rampant human rights violations we're seeing in Ukraine has tragically become all too familiar.
But it's not just Russia.
When President Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statute, he advised against U.S. ratification out of concern that the court could assert jurisdiction over U.S. officials and servicemembers. President George W. Bush then famously "unsigned" the Rome Statute less than one year before his illegal invasion of Iraq.
The Trump administration went so far as to sanction ICC prosecutors who were investigating possible U.S. crimes in Afghanistan.
The U.S. now has an opportunity to reset its contentious relationship with the ICC--and the global rule of law more broadly.
A resolution now in Congress, introduced by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), calls for the U.S. to join the ICC. Another resolution would repeal a 2002 law that prohibits U.S. support for ICC investigations. Enacting both would bolster the court's effectiveness through greater U.S. involvement and show that the U.S. is serious about international criminal justice.
Ultimately, no country should stand in the way of accountability and remedy for victims of conflict, whether in Ukraine, Palestine, Yemen, or elsewhere. That includes the United States, which must also reckon with its own crimes committed during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
"We cannot successfully cooperate with the rest of the world in establishing a reign of law," warned Robert H. Jackson, the chief U.S. prosecutor at Nuremberg, "unless we are prepared to have that law sometimes operate against what would be our national advantage."
Law alone won't deliver global justice. But if we want fewer wars, more diplomacy, and more international cooperation, then no country can remain above it.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.