[Note: We found this on the website of the World Federalist Association. It was part of a petition drive to get President Clinton to sign off on the statute for the Internationl Court in Rome.]

In April 1998, Pesident Clinton stood before a group of Rwandan genocide survivors and told his audience that to prevent future "genocidal violence, nothing is more vital than establishing the rule of law." Clinton continued,

"[W]e must make it clear to all those who would commit such acts in the future that they too must answer for their acts, and they will. Internationally, as we meet here, talks are underway at the United Nations to establish a permanent international criminal court. And the United States will work to see that it [the ICC] is created."

Three months later, President Clinton reneged on his promise to the Rwandan genocide survivors when his envoys voted against the ICC in Rome. On July 17, 1998 in Rome, the Statute for the ICC was adopted by 120 nations voting "yes" and only 7 nations voting "no." The U.S. delegation voted against the treaty, along with such dubious company as China, Iraq, Quatar, Yemen, and Libya.

The ICC Statute stipulates that after December 31, 2000, the treaty will not be open for signature, only to accession. (This means that the Senate would need to ratify the treaty for the U.S. to be a signatory.)

Proposed Rule: The U.S. has continued to participate in the Preparatory Commission (PrepComm: the process through which the practical arrangements for the establishment of the court are made). During the PrepComms, the U.S. has made a number of important contributions, but has consistently tried to introduce technical 'fixes' to keep American officials out of the reach of the court.

The U.S. originally floated its proposal informally during the March session of the PrepComm, and is planning to formally introduce it during the upcoming June 12-30 session. The proposal consists of a change to Article 98 and a supplemental text that would prohibit the Court from seeking to try an individual who claimed to be acting in an official capacity for his/her country, unless the country in question consented or the Security Council passed a resolution under its Chapter VII authority.

Talking Points

• If this year's deadline passes without signature, the likelihood of eventual U.S. participation in the court will be dramatically reduced.
• President Clinton can sign the treaty any time. While he will obviously bring political considerations into his decision-making, the bottom line is that signing or not is his choice.
• The proposed U.S. rule would be tantamount to giving a veto to the State of nationality of the accused or the Security Council permanent members and would severely limit the competence of the court.
• Genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes are most often carried out by the official representatives of a state. The proposed rule would grant immunity for official acts of government officials. Saddam Hussein could claim that his genocidal chemical warfare against the Kurds was an official act to protect national security. Even the Nazis could have claimed that their crimes were official acts.
• The proposed rule violate existing international principles and law, most notably the Nuremberg Principles the Nuremberg Principles, which hold that no person, whatever his rank, is immune from prosecution for crimes against humanity. The U.S. position would violate the Genocide Convention of 1948, the Geneva Conventions of 1949, and the Torture Convention, all international treaties that the United States has ratified.
• The statute already contains sufficient protection for U.S. officials, most importantly through the principle of complimentarity, which stipulates that the court only has jurisdiction if the country of the accused’s nationality is not able or willing to prosecute the individual in its national courts.(The World Federalist Association June 2000 Action Alert)