The United States reluctance to join the international criminal law statute: an analysis
Authors: Taak Sangeeta 
Published: June 2024

The International Criminal Court statute (ICC statute hereinafter) is a treaty based and its jurisdiction is applicable on those states who signs and ratifies the statute. In order to explain the working of the International Criminal Court, it is necessary to define the jurisdiction to which it is applicable. Although the model of the International Court of Justice was available, yet no one had ever tried to create a court with such a wider scope and application. The Predecessor examples of the Nuremberg Tribunals, International Criminal Tribunal Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) etc. had territorial jurisdiction in nature. It means that the ICTR had the jurisdiction over those crimes only which were committed by the Rwandan nationals in the neighboring countries.1 The only distinguished feature of ICC statute from its predecessors is that the Jurisdiction of ICC is consent based. The states who signs and ratifies it shall be subject to its jurisdiction. As in the words of W. Chadwick Austin and Antony Barone Kolenc, “These are the fundamentals of the court’s jurisdiction that individual states are entitled to exercise with respect to the same crimes. Moreover, the drafters of the Rome Statute sought to limit the ability of the court to try cases over which it has, at least in theory, jurisdiction. Only when the domestic justice system is unwilling or is unable to prosecute, can the International Criminal Court take over. This is what the Statute refers to as admissibility”.2 Not every case is admissible even if it has jurisdiction. Moreover, ICC is getting support from its member states. Unlike other global courts, ICC has less limitation for enforcement. In foreign courts, which rely on universal jurisdiction laws are limited by their lack of international support and political influence to enforce their decisions.3 If we compare the International Court of Justice (ICJ), it has limited enforcement power. The support and cooperation of U.S Domestic courts make it convenient to enforce the jurisdiction and power to carry out their decisions.4 On the other hand, in case of ICC, it is independent institution from the U.S. did not ratify the ICC statute. In this case it is a challenge before ICC to gain universal jurisdiction of the court and to enforce the decision of the court. To make this court universal in nature, it is necessary to make the jurisdiction of the court fair and suspicion free in the provisions of the Rome Statute. It is also important to make the countries liable who are not party to it but they have committed a crime under the ICC Statute.5 One of the most important arguments is as to who can trigger the jurisdiction of the ICC. In this article I shall be focusing on the argument of U.S for not signing the ICC. I shall be analyzing the practical reasons for not signing the ICC Statute and the arguments advanced by the U.S. The analysis of the non-state parties is also explained to make it clear that why states are still reluctant to sign the Rome statute. India, U.S and China have major objections for signing the Rome Statue. In this paper I shall be explaining the objection of United States in joining the ICC.