No one expects the United States to embrace the court anytime soon. Benign neglect is the most that can be hoped for. But the vehemence of U.S. objections is founded in part on important misconceptions. By providing a forum to prosecute the authors of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, the court is designed to curtail the impunity that has fueled the worst atrocities of our time. Hiatt charges that the court will in fact have the opposite effect by discouraging military intervention to stop such crimes.
Recent history refutes that claim.
The Pentagon willingly participated in bombing campaigns over Serb depredations in Bosnia in 1995 and Kosovo in 1999. Yet in each case, U.S. troops were subject to prosecution by the Yugoslav War Crimes Tribunal. Indeed, the tribunal arguably posed a greater threat to U.S. forces than the international criminal court, because any tribunal decision to prosecute would have superseded the views of U.S. authorities. The court, by contrast, must defer to conscientious investigations by national authorities, even if they decide against prosecution. Hiatt compares political supervision of the court unfavorably to that of the Yugoslav tribunal.