BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Case-by-case approach is superior to ICC in crises

John R. Bolton. "The United States and the International Criminal Court". Remarks to the Federalist Society. 14 Nov. 2002 - "it is by no means clear that "justice" as defined by the Court and Prosecutor is always consistent with the attainable political resolution of serious political and military disputes. It may be, or it may not be. Human conflict teaches that, much to the dismay of moralists and legal theoreticians, mortal policy makers often must make tradeoffs among inconsistent objectives. This can be a painful and unpleasant realization, confronting us as it does with the irritating facts of human complexity, contradiction, and imperfection [...] Accumulated experience strongly favors a case-by-case approach, politically and legally, rather than the inevitable resort to adjudication. Circumstances differ, and circumstances matter. Atrocities, whether in international wars or in domestic contexts, are by definition uniquely horrible in their own times and places."
US opposition to ICC impairs action and justice in Sudan

Roger Cohen. "A Court for a New America". New York Times. 3 Dec. 2008 - "it is in Sudan that the incoherence of American policy toward the court has been most evident. The United States is against impunity for the genocidal crimes in Darfur, yet it is not a member of the court seeking to prosecute those responsible [...] The court has issued arrest warrants for a former Sudanese government minister, Ahmad Harun, and for Ali Kushayb, a leader of the government-backed janjaweed militia. In July, it requested an arrest warrant for Omar Hassan al-Bashir, the Sudanese president, on charges of genocide, but judges are still reviewing whether to push ahead with the prosecution [...] When I asked Brooke Anderson, Obama’s chief national security spokeswoman, about policy toward the court, I received this e-mail response: 'President-elect Obama strongly supports the I.C.C.’s efforts to investigate and prosecute those responsible for atrocities in Sudan.'"
The ICC's authority is vague and over-reaching

John R. Bolton. "The United States and the International Criminal Court". Remarks to the Federalist Society. 14 Nov. 2002 - "As to the former, the ICC’s authority is vague and excessively elastic, and the Court’s discretion ranges far beyond normal or acceptable judicial responsibilities, giving it broad and unacceptable powers of interpretation that are essentially political and legislative in nature. This is most emphatically not a Court of limited jurisdiction. Crimes can be added subsequently that go beyond those included in the Rome Statute. Parties to the Statute are subject to these subsequently-added crimes only if they affirmatively accept them, but the Statute purports automatically to bind non-parties, such as the United States, to any such new crimes. It is neither reasonable nor fair that these crimes would apply to a greater extent to states that have not agreed to the terms of the Rome Statute than to those that have."
Without a constitution, ICC cannot adequately protect rights

John R. Bolton. "The United States and the International Criminal Court". Remarks to the Federalist Society. 14 Nov. 2002 - "The ICC does not, and cannot, fit into a coherent, international structural "constitutional" design that delineates clearly how laws are made, adjudicated or enforced, subject to popular accountability and structured to protect liberty. There is no such design, nor should there be. Instead, the Court and the Prosecutor are simply "out there" in the international system. Requiring the United States to be bound by this treaty, with its unaccountable Prosecutor and its unchecked judicial power, is clearly inconsistent with American standards of constitutionalism. This is a macro-constitutional issue for us, not simply a narrow, technical point of law."
ICC may interfere with the work of the UN Security Council

John R. Bolton. "The United States and the International Criminal Court". Remarks to the Federalist Society. 14 Nov. 2002 - "Under the UN Charter, the Security Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. The ICC’s efforts could easily conflict with the Council’s work. Indeed, the Statute of Rome substantially minimized the Security Council’s role in ICC affairs. While the Security Council may refer matters to the ICC, or order it to refrain from commencing or proceeding with an investigation or prosecution , the Council is precluded from a meaningful role in the ICC’s work. In requiring an affirmative Council vote to stop a case, the Statute shifts the balance of authority from the Council to the ICC."
ICC war crime charges damaged diplomacy in Sudan

David B Jr Rivkin and Lee Casey. "The ICC's Blow to Peace Hopes in Darfur". Wall Street Journal. 23 July 2008 - "Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the prosecutor for the International Criminal Court (ICC), has just made a mistake that will make it harder to help people suffering in Darfur. Last week, he filed charges against Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. [...] There is no doubt that terrible crimes have been committed in Darfur. But the international community has been unwilling to use military force to stop the atrocities, and this indictment takes Darfur's second-best hope for peace -- a diplomatic settlement -- off of the table."
ICC will continually expand jurisdiction over national sovereignty

Gary T. Dempsey. "Reasonable Doubt: The Case Against the Proposed International Criminal Court". CATO Institute. 16 July 1998 - "the court threatens to diminish America's sovereignty, produce arbitrary and highly politicized "justice," and grow into a jurisdictional leviathan. Already some supporters of the proposed court want to give it the authority to prosecute drug trafficking as well as such vague offenses as "serious threats to the environment" and "committing outrages on personal dignity." Even if such expansive authority is not given to the ICC initially, the potential for jurisdictional creep is considerable and worrisome."
ICC can second-guess national prosecution terminations/denials

"U.S. Policy Regarding the International Criminal Court". Congressional Research Service. 29 Aug. 2006 - "Many U.S. opponents of the ICC express concern that the ICC will be able to second-guess a valid determination by U.S. prosecutors to terminate an investigation or decline to prosecute a person. It is not uncommon for unfriendly countries to characterize U.S. foreign policy decisions as 'criminal.' The ICC could provide a forum for such charges."
ICC causes tyrants to cling to power to avoid prosecution

"U.S. Policy Regarding the International Criminal Court". Congressional Research Service. 29 Aug. 2006 - "[Some] argue that the perception of U.S. commitment to the rule of law has little effect on countries where human rights abuses are most rampant. Despots like Cambodia’s Pol Pot or Iraq’s Saddam Hussein have not weighed possible future legal ramifications before committing massive crimes.98 Under this view, the establishment of the ICC might have the unintended effect of hardening the resolve of ruthless tyrants who may feel they have nothing to gain by giving up their power."
All UN members can vote on ICC definition of "aggression"

"U.S. Policy Regarding the International Criminal Court". Congressional Research Service. 29 Aug. 2006 - "ICC supporters may argue that all States Parties will have the opportunity to vote on a definition of aggression after the treaty has been in effect for seven years, which definition must comport with the U.N. Charter, thereby preserving the role of the U.N. Security Council.37 The ICC, under this view, is merely providing a forum for trying persons accused of committing “aggression” under international law."
The ICC lacks democratic accountability to voters

John R. Bolton. "The United States and the International Criminal Court". Remarks to the Federalist Society. 14 Nov. 2002 - "Never before has the United States been asked to place any of that power outside the complete control of our national government without our consent [...] In the ICC’s central structures, the Court and Prosecutor, these sorts of political checks are either greatly attenuated or entirely absent. They are effectively accountable to no one. The Prosecutor will answer to no superior executive power, elected or unelected. Nor is there any legislature anywhere in sight, elected or unelected, in the Statute of Rome. The Prosecutor is answerable only to the Court, and then only partially, although the Prosecutor may be removed by the Assembly of States Parties."
ICC rules of war make war more tolerable and likely

Gary T. Dempsey. "Reasonable Doubt: The Case Against the Proposed International Criminal Court". CATO Institute. 16 July 1998 - "there is no evidence that holding war crimes trials reduces the number of threats to international peace and security. If anything, the opposite is true: making war less atrocious makes it more likely. The creation of war crimes courts, he concludes, seems really 'to have been aimed at making lawyers the 'guardians' of a violent society, in which war is all right as long as it is played by rules to which the concerned lawyers can agree."
ICC adopts an unacceptably vague definition of "aggression"

John R. Bolton. "The United States and the International Criminal Court". Remarks to the Federalist Society. 14 Nov. 2002 - "Numerous prospective "crimes" were suggested at Rome and commanded wide support from participating nations, such as the crime of "aggression," which was included in the Statute, but not defined. Although frequently easy to identify, "aggression" can at times be something in the eye of the beholder. For example, Israel justifiably feared in Rome that certain actions, such as its initial use of force in the Six Day War, would be perceived as illegitimate preemptive strikes that almost certainly would have provoked proceedings against top Israeli officials."
ICC authority impedes foreign policy flexibility

"U.S. Policy Regarding the International Criminal Court". Congressional Research Service. 29 Aug. 2006 - "ICC opponents, however, may point out that if individuals are charged for conduct related to carrying out official policy, the difference between asserting jurisdiction over individuals and over the nation itself becomes less clear. After all, it is arguably the policy decision and not the individual conduct that is actually at issue. The threat of prosecution, however, could inhibit the conduct of U.S. officials in implementing U.S. foreign policy. In this way, it is argued, the ICC may be seen to infringe U.S. sovereignty."
ICC is the best tool for fighting genocide and war crimes

Roger Cohen. "A Court for a New America". New York Times. 3 Dec. 2008 - "After the terrible decade of the 1990s, with its genocides in Bosnia and Rwanda and the loss there of a million lives while the United States and its allies dithered, it is unconscionable that America not stand with the institution that constitutes the most effective legal deterrent to such crimes [...] The International Criminal Court has filed charges against alleged war criminals in Congo, Central African Republic, Uganda and Sudan since it started work in 2002. The first trial, involving a Congolese warlord, Thomas Lubanga, is set to begin in January."
ICC has strong controls for politicization and abuse

Benjamin B. Ferencz, J.D. Harvard 1943 and a Former Nuremberg War Crimes Prosecutor. "Response to Henry Kissinger's essay 'The Pitfalls of Universal Jurisdiction'." 2 July 2001 - "[Henry Kissinger] accuses the ICTY of allowing 'prosecutorial discretion without accountability' - ignoring all the controls that exist to prevent abuse."
ICC completes historic process starting with Nuremberg Trials

Rebecca Roe. "The U.S. should embrace the international justice system". Seattle Times. 20 Sept 2007 - "The ICC, established in 2002, has a distinguished history. The permanent court arose from several temporary or ad hoc courts including Nuremberg (1945-1949), International Criminal Tribunal Yugoslavia (ICTY, 1995 to present), ICT-Rwanda (ongoing in Arusha, Tanzania) and Special Court Sierra Leone (SCSL, 1994-ongoing). The international courts prosecute genocide, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity, systematic rape, child soldiering and similar atrocities."
US double standard in trying only foreigners in ICC

Ian Williams. "Immune from prosecution". Salon. 16 June 2000 - "Other nations' delegations are aghast at what many frankly call the hypocrisy of the American position. After all, Congress vociferously wants international trials for prosecutions of Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein, not to mention Foday Sankoh from Sierra Leone, the leaders of Khmer Rouge from Cambodia and the Hutu genocide instigators from Rwanda -- and if they could get their hands on him, Moammar Gadhafi of Libya would certainly be dragged before the court [...] So committed is the United States to the principle of trials for all that it sent an army to Panama to bring back President Manuel Noriega to put him in the dock in Miami. But there is one major exception to this principle. We can try who we like, but don't anyone try to try one of ours. For the sake of that, the U.S. delegation is prepared to let a whole rogues' gallery run loose."
The ICC risks heavy politicization of prosecution

Henry Kissinger. "The Pitfalls of Universal Jurisdiction: Risking Judicial Tryanny". Foreign Affairs. Aug. 2001 - "Another grave issue is the use in such cases of extradition procedures designed for ordinary criminals. If the Pinochet case becomes a precedent, magistrates anywhere will be in a position to put forward an extradition request without warning to the accused and regardless of the policies the accused's country might already have in place for dealing with the charges. The country from which extradition is requested then faces a seemingly technical legal decision that, in fact, amounts to the exercise of political discretion -- whether to entertain the claim or not."
ICC is not historically comparable to the Nuremberg tribunal

Gary T. Dempsey. "Reasonable Doubt: The Case Against the Proposed International Criminal Court". CATO Institute. 16 July 1998 - "It is common for proponents of the ICC to argue that it will function like a permanent Nuremberg tribunal.2 In fact, the city of Nuremberg, where 21 Nazis stood trial for their role in the deaths of more than 20 million people, is mounting a serious campaign to be the permanent home of the proposed court.3 Yet according to John R. Bolton, former assistant secretary of state for international organization affairs, the Nuremberg comparison does not withstand close inspection: "Whenever the idea of a war crimes tribunal is raised, Nuremberg is the model invariably cited. But an international criminal court [will be] nothing like Nuremberg."4 Consider how the Nuremberg trials actually worked. They followed the unconditional military and political surrender of the Axis powers. Prospective defendants were already in custody, and extensive documentary and physical evidence was readily available. Moreover, the Allies shared a common vision of what the postoccupation government should look like, and the defeated peoples endorsed the legitimacy of the war crimes process. Simply reciting that history shows how different Germany and the Nuremberg tribunal were from contemporary cases, like Bosnia and the Yugoslavia tribunal."
The ICC has proven very effective

"Let the child live; International Criminal Court". The Economist. 27 Jan. 2007 - "Aged four-and-a-half, the tribunal is proving a lustier infant than many predicted. Its prosecutors have delved deeply into horrible wars in Congo, Sudan and Uganda. The court's first trial—of Thomas Lubanga, a Congolese warlord, accused of using children as soldiers—is due to start later this year. The first indictments for the mass killings in Sudan's Darfur region are expected next month. Five leaders of Uganda's rebel Lord's Resistance Army have already been indicted. One has since been killed, but the other four face trial when caught. An investigation into atrocities in a fourth, as yet unnamed, country is due to be announced soon."
ICC helps protect captured servicemen abroad

Benjamin B. Ferencz, J.D. Harvard 1943 and a Former Nuremberg War Crimes Prosecutor. "Response to Henry Kissinger's essay 'The Pitfalls of Universal Jurisdiction'." 2 July 2001 - "Kissinger's misperceptions about current international law lead him to the erroneous conclusion that if the U.S. dos not ratify the ICC treaty Americans will be outside its reach and hence protected from malicious accusations. He fails to notice that without the protective shield of binding international law and institutions to enforce it, the military captive is completely at the mercy of his captors [...] Outstanding American international legal experts, including ten former Presidents of the American Society of International Law and the American Bar Association have, after careful study, concluded that it would be in the best interests of the United States and its military personnel for the United States to accept the proposed ICC as quickly as possible. The same conclusion was reached in 2000 by outstanding professors of the Harvard law School after a careful study by leading military and legal experts assembled by the venerated American Academy of Arts and Sciences."
UN Security Council can check/veto ICC prosecutions

Benjamin B. Ferencz, J.D. Harvard 1943 and a Former Nuremberg War Crimes Prosecutor. "Response to Henry Kissinger's essay 'The Pitfalls of Universal Jurisdiction'." 2 July 2001 - "Administrative and budgetary controls are clearly defined. Without its own police force, the court must depend upon the Security Council to enforce its decisions. Enforcement can be vetoed by any of the five privileged Permanent Members, including the U.S. Kissinger's reference to the 'unlimited discretion' of the prosecutor is unfounded. Many safeguards are written into the statute. A court that acts arbitrarily or seeks to abuse its limited powers will soon cease to exist."
The ICC is less effective due to US opposition

"U.S. Policy Regarding the International Criminal Court". Congressional Research Service. 29 Aug. 2006 - "The perceived U.S. willingness to hold U.N. peacekeeping missions hostage to U.S. demands for immunity from the ICC may deepen the rift between the United States and allies that support the ICC. The withholding of military assistance and other economic aid to members of the ICC may also be seen as an effort to coerce countries to refuse to ratify the Rome Statute or to sign an Article 98 agreement, which could appear to some as undermining the ICC and negating the Administration’s stated intent to respect the decisions of other countries to join the ICC."
ICC can try servicemen only if domestic courts do not

Wes Rist. "The Conservative Case for the International Criminal Court Six Years In". Jurist. 10 Dec. 2008 - "The possibility that American servicemen and women and political and military leaders could be held up to scrutiny for their actions is not a new one. It has been enshrined in American law from the foundation of the country under the Articles of War and later the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The ICC merely adds the opportunity for the prosecution of individuals who might have escaped the domestic system of justice. If there is enough evidence that the prosecutor for the ICC could even consider an investigation of a US political or military official for the crimes set out in the Rome Statute, then American conservatives should already have been at the forefront of the call for a domestic investigation. Since the principle of complementarity in Article 17 of the Rome Statute prohibits the ICC from initiating an investigation when a domestic judicial system has already addressed the issue, an American investigation into our own “dirty laundry” would prevent any ICC jurisdiction."
Potential judicial mistakes don't justify opposing ICC

Benjamin B. Ferencz, J.D. Harvard 1943 and a Former Nuremberg War Crimes Prosecutor. "Response to Henry Kissinger's essay 'The Pitfalls of Universal Jurisdiction'." 2 July 2001 - "In every democratic society it is unavoidable that some unjustified complaints may be lodged for political or other nefarious purposes. It is also inevitable that some judgments may go awry and some judges may be incompetent or worse. That is no reason to abolish courts or to refuse to accept new courts where needed."
Deterrence theory untenable; ICC will not deter

John R. Bolton, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security. "The United States and the International Criminal Court". Remarks to the Federalist Society. 14 Nov. 2002 - "ICC will not help deter the danger of the ICC may lie in its potential weakness rather than its potential strength. The most basic error is the belief that the ICC will have a substantial deterrent effect against the perpetration of crimes against humanity. Behind their optimistic rhetoric, ICC proponents have not a shred of evidence supporting their deterrence theories. In fact, they fundamentally confuse the appropriate roles of political and economic power, diplomatic efforts, military force, and legal procedures. Recent history is filled with cases where even strong military force or the threat of force failed to deter aggression or gross abuses of human rights. ICC proponents concede as much when they cite cases where the "world community" has failed to pay adequate attention, or failed to intervene in time to prevent genocide or other crimes against humanity. The new Court and Prosecutor, it is said, will now guarantee against similar failures."
Bush opposed ICC to protect its actions in War in Iraq

Dennis Kucinich. "The US Administration and the ICC". Common Dreams. 9 Dec. 2004 - "The Administration has told the American people that it refuses to participate in the ICC in order to protect our troops from being brought to the Hague. [...] It is more likely that those whose protection the administrators seek wear not the uniform of our nation, but the business suits of top civilian government officials who wrap themselves in the flag and hide behind the troops while insisting upon impunity for the deadly consequences of their own political decisions."
ICC lacks separation of powers and checks and balances

John R. Bolton. "The United States and the International Criminal Court". Remarks to the Federalist Society. 14 Nov. 2002 - "The American concept of separation of powers, imperfect though it is, reflects our settled belief that liberty is best protected when the various authorities legitimately exercised by government are, to the maximum extent possible, placed in separate branches. So structuring the national government, the Framers believed, would prevent the excessive accumulation of power in a limited number of hands, thus providing the greatest protection for individual liberty. Continental European constitutional structures do not, by and large, reflect a similar set of beliefs. They do not so thoroughly separate judicial from executive powers, just as their parliamentary systems do not so thoroughly separate executive from legislative powers. That, of course, is entirely Europe’s prerogative, and may help to explain why Europeans appear to be more comfortable with the ICC’s structure, which closely melds prosecutorial and judicial functions in the European fashion."