United States

The United States of America has signed the Rome Statute, but has indicated it does not intend to ratify it. The US has partially incorporated Rome Statute offenses into national laws, and has an observer status during the Assembly of States Parties.
Regions: 
Americas
Although historically a strong supporter of international justice, the United States of America has only ever signed the Rome Statute and at one time indicated it did not intend to ratify the ICC founding treaty. The US has partially incorporated Rome Statute offenses into national laws, including war crimes and genocide provisions. The US holds one of five permanent seats in the United Nations Security Council.

The International Criminal Court and the United States by Human Rights Watch 

This Q&A addresses key questions regarding the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the relationship between the court and the United States.

  1. What is the International Criminal Court?
  2. Is the US a member of the ICC?
  3. What fair trial protections exist before the ICC?
  4. Does the ICC override national authorities in carrying out investigations and prosecutions?
  5. Why can the ICC investigate and prosecute US personnel?
  6. Hasn't the US already investigated alleged abuses by US military and CIA personnel in Afghanistan?
  7. What has been the US relationship with the ICC?
  8. What is the US position now on the ICC?
  9. Could the ICC open an investigation in Palestine?
  10. What safeguards exist at the ICC to prevent politically motivated cases?
  11. Which countries support the ICC?
  12. Has the ICC lived up to expectations?

 

1. What is the International Criminal Court?

The ICC is an independent judicial institution empowered to investigate and prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and the crime of aggression. Its establishment in 2002 signaled the commitment of many countries to fight impunity for the worst international crimes.

Currently, 123 countries are ICC members, giving the ICC authority, under its founding treaty, the Rome Statute, to investigate and prosecute crimes committed by their nationals or by anyone on their territory. As a matter of policy, the ICC prosecutor gives priority to cases against individuals who it determines are most responsible for the crimes under the court's jurisdiction, regardless of their official position.

The court has been in operation since 2003. It has opened more than two dozen cases based on investigations in 10 countries, most of which are ongoing. The court's prosecutor is considering whether investigations are needed in a further ten countries. A request to open an investigation into crimes committed in the context of the armed conflict in Afghanistan , which could include alleged grave crimes related to detainee abuse by US personnel , is pending before the court's judges.

2. Is the US a member of the ICC?

The US is not a state party to the Rome Statute. The US participated in the negotiations that led to the creation of the court. However, in 1998 the US was one of only seven countries - along with China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar, and Yemen - that voted against the Rome Statute. US President Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statute in 2000 but did not submit the treaty to the Senate for ratification. In 2002, President George W. Bush effectively "unsigned" the treaty, sending a note to the United Nations secretary-general that the US no longer intended to ratify the treaty and that it did not have any obligations toward it. However, since then, US relations with the court have been complicated but often positive (see question 7 below).

3. What fair trial protections exist before the ICC?

The ICC is designed to be an independent permanent tribunal that respects the highest standards of justice. The Rome Statute incorporates  international  fair trial standards to preserve  a defendant's due process rights, including presumption of innocence; right to counsel; right to present evidence and to confront witnesses; right to remain  silent; right to be present  at trial; right to have charges proved beyond a reasonable doubt; right to an appeal; and protection against double jeopardy.

4. Does the ICC override national authorities in carrying out investigations and prosecutions?

Under international law, states have a responsibility to investigate and appropriately prosecute (or extradite for prosecution) suspected perpetrators of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other international crimes. The ICC does not shift this responsibility. It is a court of last resort. Under what is known as the "principle of complementarity," the ICC may only exercise its jurisdiction when a country is either unwilling or genuinely unable to investigate and prosecute these grave crimes. Even after an investigation is opened, there are opportunities for states and individual defendants to challenge the lawfulness of cases before the court based on the existence of national proceedings.

5. Why can the ICC investigate and prosecute US personnel?

There are limited situations in which the ICC has jurisdiction over the nationals of countries such as the US that have not joined the Rome Statute.

This includes when a citizen of a non-member country commits war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide on the territory of an ICC member country. That's why US citizens may be subject to the court's jurisdiction as it investigates alleged grave crimes that took place in Afghanistan, which is a state party, or in Poland, Lithuania, and Romania, which also states parties.

There is nothing unusual in this. US citizens who commit crimes abroad are already subject to the jurisdiction of foreign courts. This is a basic and well-established principle of international law. Countries that ratify the Rome Statute are simply delegating their authority to prosecute certain grave crimes committed on their territory to an international court. By providing accountability for war crimes, the ICC promotes respect for the laws of war, which protect civilians as well as soldiers.

With respect to Afghanistan, the parties to the armed conflict in the country have committed numerous violations of international humanitarian law, or the laws of war. The Taliban and other insurgent groups have committed targeted and indiscriminate attacks on civilians that have caused thousands of casualties. Afghan security forces and pro-government militias have committed torture, rape, enforced disappearances, and extrajudicial killings. The US military Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and other foreign forces have also committed serious abuses, particularly against people in custody.

6. Hasn't the US already investigated alleged abuses by US military and CIA personnel in Afghanistan?

The US has conducted some investigations into alleged abuses by US personnel in Afghanistan,  but they were limited in scope. In 2009, the US Department of Justice opened an investigation into 101 cases of alleged detainee abuse by the CIA, including the cases of two detainees who died in CIA custody, but no charges were brought. Human Rights Watch found no evidence that the investigators interviewed any victims of CIA torture. Moreover, the investigation was limited to abuses that went beyond the interrogation methods authorized by the Justice  Department.  Many of the authorized techniques were abusive - some clearly amounting to torture - and should have been included. A 2014 report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that the CIA covered up its crimes, including by making false claims to the Justice Department. The 6,700-page

Senate report remains classified, but a redacted version of the 525-page summary shows that abusive CIA interrogation methods were far more brutal, systematic, and widespread than previously reported. It is harder to evaluate the extent to which torture by the US military in Afghanistan has been investigated and prosecuted. In 2015, the United States reported to the UN Committee against Torture that the armed forces had begun 70 investigations into detainee abuse that resulted in trial by courts-martial, but no time period was provided, and no further information was publicly available.

7. What has been the US relationship with the ICC?

In the early years of the ICC, the George W. Bush administration led a hostile campaign against the court. For instance, the Bush administration pressured governments around the world to enter into bilateral agreements requiring them not to surrender US nationals to the ICC. But these efforts did little more than erode US credibility on international justice and gradually gave way to a more supportive US posture, starting in 2005. The US did not veto a UN Security Council request to the ICC prosecutor to investigate crimes in Darfur, Sudan in 2005 and it voted for the UN Security Council referral of the situation in Libya to the court in 2011.

US support was critical in the transfer to the court of ICC suspects Bosco Nta ganda, a Congolese rebel leader, in 2012 and Dominic Ongwen , a Lord's Resistance Army commander, in 2015. In 2013, the US Congress expanded its existing war crimes rewards program to provide rewards to people providing information to facilitate the arrest of foreign individuals wanted by any international court or tribunal, including the ICC.

8. What is the US position now on the ICC?

Under President Donald Trump's administration, the US government has said that it will not cooperate with the ICC and has threatened retaliatory steps against ICC staff and member countries should the court investigate US or allied country citizens. On March 15, 2019, US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo announced that the US would impose visa bans on ICC officials involved in the court's potential investigation of US citizens for alleged crimes in Afghanistan. He indicated the same policy may be used to deter ICC efforts to investigate nationals of allied countries, including Israelis.

National Security Advisor John Bolton first announced this approach in September 2018. Two weeks later, President Trump addressed the UN General Assembly stating that the "United States will provide no support or recognition to the International Criminal Court. As far as America is concerned the ICC has no jurisdiction, no legitimacy, and no authority." On December 4, Secretary of  State Mike Pompeo reiterated the administration's position towards the court during a speech in Brussels.

9. Could the ICC open an investigation in Palestine?

In his September 2018 speech on the ICC, National Security Advisor John Bolton indicated that the US would also take action against the ICC if court investigations concerned Israel. Since January 2015, the ICC prosecutor has been examining alleged serious crimes committed in Palestine since June 13,   2014, including war crimes and crimes against humanity, in what is known as a  "preliminary examination." On May 22, 2018, Palestine submitted a " referral " requesting the prosecutor investigate crimes under the ICC's jurisdiction.

The prosecutor's preliminary examination includes analyzing whether crimes specified in the Rome Statute have been committed; whether those crimes are sufficiently grave to merit the court's attention; and whether national authorities are genuinely carrying out credible investigations and, if appropriate, prosecutions of the cases under ICC consideration, since the ICC is a court of last resort. In her office's December 2018 annual report on all preliminary examinations, the prosecutor indicated that she "intends to complete the [Palestine] preliminary examination as early as possible." Given Palestine's referral, unlike the situation in Afghanistan, if the ICC prosecutor determines the legal criteria for opening an investigation are met, her office may proceed with an investigation without seeking authorization by a chamber of judges.

Given the strong evidence that serious crimes have been committed in Palestine since 2014, including new population transfers into occupied territories, Human Rights Watch has called on the ICC prosecutor to open a formal investigation of serious international crimes committed in Palestine by Israelis and Palestinians.

10. What safeguards exist at the ICC to prevent politically motivated cases?

There are numerous safeguards set out in the Rome Statute to prevent frivolous or politically motivated cases. Unless there is a referral from a state or the UN Security Council, the ICC prosecutor is not able to begin an investigation on her own initiative; it requires authorization from a pre-trial chamber of three judges. In all investigations, the prosecutor needs to apply to the court's judges for arrest warrants and to confirm charges prior to trial.

The focus of ICC investigations and prosecutions in Africa in its early years have led to criticisms of bias by some African leaders, although attacks on the ICC emanating from Africa have ebbed in recent years. While nearly all of the court's first investigations were in Africa, the majority were initiated following a request of the country where the crimes were committed or UN Security Council referral. Still, international justice has been applied unevenly: powerful countries and their allies have been able to evade the reach of justice when serious crimes are committed on their territories by not joining the ICC and by blocking referrals by the Security Council.

11. Which countries support the ICC?

The ICC has the backing of established and emerging democracies around the world. Its governing body, the Assembly of States Parties (ASP), currently consists of 123   countries that have ratified the Rome Statute: 33 from the Africa region, 21  from the Asia-Pacific region, 18  from Eastern Europe, 28 from the Latin American and Caribbean region, and 23 from Western Europe and North America. Malaysia announced on March 4, 2019 that it would become the latest ICC member.

The prosecutor and the judges are accountable to the ASP. The ASP has the authority to remove them from office in the event that they abuse their powers. The ASP has also established an Independent Oversight Mechanism. Among other functions, the oversight mechanism can conduct investigations of alleged misconduct or fraud concerning any elected court official or court staff.

Burundi withdrew from the ICC effective October 2017, and the Philippines gave notice of withdrawal in March 2018, which goes into effect one year later. An effort by the government of Kenya - at a time when its president and deputy president were facing charges before the court - to lead a mass withdrawal of African states from the treaty failed to materialize.

12. Has the ICC lived up to expectations?

The ICC has so far opened more than two dozen cases, and pre-trial or trial proceedings are ongoing in four cases. However, trials for war crimes and crimes against humanity have only been completed in a handful of cases, with three people convicted and four others acquitted. Some other cases have been dismissed for lack of evidence. Court officials have made a number of missteps and stronger investigations by the ICC prosecutor, better choices in the selection of cases, more efficient proceedings, and more effective outreach with victims and affected communities are needed.

The court also faces steep challenges in carrying out its mandate. Without a police force, it relies on states for cooperation in arrests, and that cooperation has been inadequate. Arrest warrants remain outstanding against 15 individuals. ICC member states have also held back on the necessary budget increases even as the court's workload has grown.

Civil society advocacy

Short of ratification, signing the Rome Statute creates a good faith obligation to refrain from acts that would defeat the object and the purpose of the Statute. While international legal scholars remain unclear about the legality of “nullifying” a signature, many have welcomed renewed diplomatic relations between the US and the ICC as a possible sign of the country’s willingness to reopen talks on ratification or accession.

The US has meanwhile adopted a policy favoring support to the Court in cases that advance US national security interests. The American NGO Coalition for the ICC (AMICC) highlighted in 2016 that the US had deemed all ICC cases to that point to advance such interests and that US law in fact allows for limited in-kind support on a case-by-case basis.

As a permanent UN Security Council member, the US has a particular responsibility to safeguard global peace and security, which includes referring situations of assessed atrocities to the ICC in the absence of alternative avenues to justice. While the US abstained in the 2005 Council resolution referring the situation in Darfur to the ICC, it joined the vote to refer the situation in Libya in 2011.

Until the US becomes a member of the ICC or brings its laws into full conformity with the Rome Statute, the US can demonstrate its renewed commitment by exerting influence within the Council to protect against abusive veto practices and to ensure political interests do not block the Court’s common mission to enhance global peace and security—through justice and accountability.

Civil society activities
There is an active civil society movement in the United States promoting a lasting and productive relationship with the Court, with many of these civil society actors forming the American NGOs Coalition for the ICC (AMICC). The work of these NGOs, academic programs, and individuals ranges from providing practical legal assistance to the ICC, to educating and advocating to the public, legal practitioners, and domestic policymakers.

The Coalition for the ICC has long supported its United States members’ participation at the annual Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the ICC. During the annual session itself, the Coalition has previously assisted with the organization of strategy sessions and side events on enhancing US-ICC relations or elevating international justice on the country’s foreign affairs agenda.

Campaign for global justice

Rome statute status: 
Signed but not ratified (non-ICC member state)
Agreement on Privileges an Immunities of the ICC
Neither signed nor ratified/acceded
Crime of agression
Not ratified
31 December 2000
Article 8
Not ratified