The United States, Outside the Law

The criminalization of atrocities isn’t America’s thing, unless it has a political interest in doing so. This is nothing new. The offensive initiated by President Donald Trump’s National Security Advisor John Bolton, aimed at wiping the International Criminal Court off the face of the earth, once again highlights America’s will not just to stay on the margins of international law, but also to resort to all means necessary to protect its employees and agents from this judicial authority. For example, it was just revealed that the court intends to open investigations into America’s intervention in Afghanistan and Israel’s abusive behavior in the Palestinian territories.

Accused of Being ‘Ineffective’ and ‘Dangerous’

A few days ago, speaking to members of the Federalist Society who were meeting in Washington’s Mayflower Hotel, the diplomat Bolton blurted out that the International Criminal Court is a European neo-colonial tool whose only goal is to go after the United States, that it’s “ineffective” and “dangerous,” and that his government would take all necessary measures to protect American citizens from its initiatives. It will act against the court’s judges and attorneys, whom it will block from entering the United States and whose financial assets it will freeze. It will also strive to suffocate the court by stopping other countries from collaborating with international justice. To further clarify this new show of old-school imperialism, Bolton declared that the United States will take note of any country that collaborates in an investigation against it and keep this in mind when it comes time to determine international assistance, military aid and intelligence sharing. Definitely some forceful diplomacy.

It’s true that the current American administration’s explicit intent to happily and provocatively stay on the margins of international law is nothing new. The court has been frowned on ever since its creation in 1998 via the Rome Statute. Four years later, under the George W. Bush presidency, Congress passed the August 2002 American Service-Members’ Protection Act, which forbade the extradition of any U.S. citizen to the court and any investigation of a U.S. citizen by the court’s judicial agents. At the moment, Russia, Israel, China, Cuba, India and Iraq are among the other countries that have also refused to fall under The Hague’s jurisdiction.

The investigations the International Criminal Court can carry out have to do with genocide, crimes against humanity, crimes of war and aggression – crimes that are so serious and significant that they have no statute of limitations. With this goal in mind, the court is currently conducting official investigations in the Central African Republic, Sudan (Darfur region), Georgia and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Making sure that no guilty party is ever left unpunished is a matter of democratic hygiene in the defense of human dignity and the values of the international community. This court’s raîson d’etre most closely goes back to the terrible events of the genocides in Yugoslavia (1991-1995) and Rwanda (1994). Let’s not forget, of course, the international courts of Nuremburg and Tokyo that judged the crimes committed during World War II. Back then, these courts enjoyed the support of the United States, which is therefore engaging in a blatant contradiction by completely rejecting the court and carrying out this diplomatic offensive against it. This offensive is bringing back the concepts of national security and “off-limits” issues that the United States once applied, for example, when faced with any allegations against the dictatorships in Latin America, which they unashamedly protected.

This arrogance and instrumental disregard for the institutions of international law are visible in all their coarseness in Bolton’s arguments. When in the Mayflower Hotel meeting he was asked − for consistency’s sake − why the United States didn’t leave the United Nations as well, he had no qualms about saying that in this case it wasn’t worth it because the United States already has a veto on the Security Council. That’s the way things are, and these are the crushing limits that international institutions that protect human rights are up against.

These limits, along with the unconditional support of its American partner, allow Israel to live on the margins of international law and comfortably maintain an apartheid regime in the Palestinian territories.