Neither we nor the Court should seek to legislate new crimes that are not already established. For that reason, we believe it remains premature to attempt to define a crime of aggression for purposes of individual criminal responsibility, a task that even the International Law Commission ultimately left undone. We also cannot use vague formulas that leave the Court to decide on the fundamental parameters of crimes. We also must not ignore the very legitimate question of how we administer the Court. The United States believes, along with many others, that the goals of this conference would be best served by the creation of a Court fiscally and administratively independent from the United Nations.
Many countries shoulder the burden of international security.
The United States participates with other governments in military alliances and in the United Nations or other multinational peacekeeping operations. Soldiers deployed far from home need to do their jobs without exposure to politicized proceedings. More generally, we are not here to create a Court that exists to sit in judgment on national systems, to second-guess each action and intervene if it disagrees. We are here to create a Court that focuses on recognized atrocities of significant magnitude, and thus enjoys near-universal support. The United States believes that these concerns can be addressed without weakening the Court or undermining its effectiveness.