The main argument by those who oppose the court is that the same rules that will apply to such leaders as Quaddafi, Pol Pot and Milosevich will also apply to U.S. soldiers engaged in peacekeeping and peacemaking. Hence the court is perceived as a threat to American military sovereignty. But over the objections of conservatives and the Pentagon, the United States signed the treaty on the very last day that states could sign without having to ratify it December 31 st 2000. But opposition is still rife with claims that U.S. sovereignty is being compromised. Not surprisingly, Republican lawmakers and others against the Court are calling for the new administration under President G.W. Bush to rescind the signature.
Ratification thus seems unlikely.
Those who oppose the U.S. signature claim that while the United States ceded some elements of national sovereignty to the World Trade Organization, in that structure, the levels of action and the extent of enforcement powers are limited, clearly defined, civil in nature, and generally not aimed at individual American citizens. But those who support American ratification say that this is ill informed and that the ratification of the Treaty is in the national interest. Existing international law supports the notion that the sovereign of the territory where a crime is committed has jurisdiction to try the captured offender. A U.S. soldier unfortunate enough to be brought to trial in Iraq would probably prefer to be tried in The Hague. Without U.S. involvement, the court will still go forward, but it will likely have a more difficult time establishing legitimacy.