The document discusses arguments for and against the United States joining the International Criminal Court (ICC). It outlines perspectives from realism, liberalism, and identity on the issue. A realist perspective argues against joining as it could shift prosecution power away from the U.S. and put soldiers at risk. A liberal perspective argues joining could strengthen international relationships and conflict resolution. An identity perspective notes the U.S. ideology at the time rejected the ICC following 9/11. Overall, the document concludes the risks currently outweigh the rewards, so the U.S. should not join the ICC.

1. U.S. In the ICC
The International Criminal Court can be seen as a good thing
that promotes international peace or a bad thing that does not
contribute to the cause. There are multiple countries, such as
the United States, that are not part of the ICC. Regarding the
United States, it should be a part of the ICC because in doing so
it will create less hostility towards itself, help promote
international peace, and will not allow the U.S. to cover up
certain war crimes that it feels justified to do.
First, if the U.S. would join the ICC, they would be
giving off a message that they trust other countries to help keep
worldwide peace. According to the textbook, “The United
States, more than any other country, has soldiers deployed
around the world to protect international peace and security”
(Nau, 284). By having soldiers in other countries, the U.S. is
expressing that it does not believe that other countries are
capable of dealing with the safety and security of their own
countries, let alone dealing with international crimes. This
leads to these countries to feel hostile towards the U.S. because
they feel that the U.S. is interfering in their affairs. If the U.S.
were to join the ICC, it would show that they trust these
countries to make proper judgments with regards to security
and, as a result, the other countries would not be angry at the
U.S. for thinking that it is superior regarding international
security issues.
Second, since the U.S. is a country that is a leader
within the international community, all of its actions have
powerful effects on the rest of the world. Therefore, when the
U.S. decided to not join the ICC, they expressed to the world
that the ICC is not something that is good or will be successful.
I believe that the reason the ICC is not as successful as it could
be is because the U.S. is not part of it. If the U.S. joins the
ICC, more countries will follow its lead and join as well. Once
enough countries join, they can all work together to promote

2. international peace in the world. This can only happen if the
U.S. decides to join because other countries look up to it as a
leader. If the U.S. joins the ICC, therefore legitimizing it, then
other countries will feel that it is legitimate and will want to
join and make an effort to promote international peace.
Finally, the U.S. needs to join the ICC because the
other countries will stop the U.S. from covering up its own war
crimes. One example of this is the way that prisoners were
treated in Guantanamo Bay. Here, prisoners of war were
tortured in many ways that violated multiple war laws. As
Michael Froomkin says, “our government admits we have killed
27 POWs…tortured who knows how many, and then our
government says no one is to be held accountable” (Froomkin,
“Why the U.S. Needs to Join the International Criminal
Court”). Froomkin is saying that the U.S. avoids punishment
for these crimes because it is not in the ICC. As a result, if the
U.S. were to join the ICC, it would not be able to cover up
crimes of torturing prisoners of war. This would also make the
U.S. more favorable in the eyes of other countries, which will
further promote peace and decrease any hostility towards the
United States.
Works Cited:
Nau, Henry R.
Perspectives on International Relations: Power, Institutions, and
Ideas
. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2007. Print.
Froomkin, Michael. “Why the U.S. Needs to Join the
International Criminal Court”. 2005.
https://www.discourse.net/2005/03/why_the_us_needs_to_join_t
he_international_criminal_court/
(Links to an external site.)
U.S. Out of the ICC
The International Criminal Court (ICC) is an intergovernmental

3. organization which was adopted by the United Nations. The ICC
began functioning on July 1
st
, 2002. The ICC has the jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for
the international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity,
war crimes, and crimes of aggression. The United States
participated in the original ICC negotiations until early 2002.
The United States has since refused to join the ICC. As one
questions whether or not the United States should or should not
join the ICC, one must take into account the realist perspective,
liberal perspective, and identity perspective. A realist would
argue that joining the ICC would shift power of persecution
from a domestic level where the US Government reigns supreme
to the international world stage. A liberal would argue that the
ICC is another means of fostering interaction and
interdependence between states, while resolving international
conflicts. The identity perspective would focus on the ideas and
identities of the actor participating in the ICC. The identity
perspective would also dissect the motivation behind why the
United States has yet to join the ICC, focusing on political
ideology and leader’s strategies.
A realist would argue firmly against joining the International
Criminal Court. A realist would raise a concern about the ICC
prosecuting US soldier’s and military personnel. The United
States “has soldiers deployed around the world to protect
international peace and security.” (Nau 284) This broad
outreach of support, according to a realist, leaves the United
States vulnerable. The ICC could bring cases against US
soldiers and even the president, for acts committed around the
world. The ICC also undermines the fundamentally anarchic
world system that realist rely upon. The idea that there is no
higher power than a governing state is essentially made void by
the ICC. The international Criminal Court is an institution that
operates outside of the sovereignty of states. A realist would
see the ICC’s intervention as a struggle for power. At the
systemic process level, interactions between other countries and

4. the US could become stained depending on the types of
accusation being made and by whom. In order to assure that no
Americans are sent to the ICC, the US has negotiated Article 98
agreements with other countries. This agreement states that
those countries would not prosecute Americans through the
ICC, placing the power back with the United States.
A liberal would argue that the United States must join the
International Criminal Court. From the liberal’s systemic
process level of analysis, joining the ICC would guarantee the
strengthening of international relationships. A liberal would
argue that by joining the ICC, the Unites States would establish
a precedent for resolving international conflicts via a worldwide
institution. According to a liberal, the fact that the US has
negotiated Article 98 agreements with other countries, makes “it
more difficult to enforce the laws prohibiting genocide, war
crimes, and crimes against humanity.” (Johansen 2) Not only
has the United States refused to join the ICC, but the actions
that they have taken essentially undermines the ICC’s
effectiveness. The Bush administration initially promised not to
undermined the court. After promising not to undermine the
Court, “the Bush administration and Congress made law and
developed policies that not only prevented US cooperation with
the Court but also aggressively undermined the Court and aimed
to destroy its legitimacy and effectiveness.” (Johansen 4) From
a liberal perspective, this outright display of resistance and
hostility, did an insurmountable amount of damage. By not
joining the ICC and by seeking US immunity, the US threatened
interdependence and negotiations. A liberal would argue that
the Unites States actions only led to more conflict than conflict
resolution. A liberal could argue that by joining the ICC, that
the US could ratify some of its previous actions.
An identity perspective would focus on ideas and ideology. At
the identity systemic level, the US and the ICC may have
conflicting ideal about what justice means. The ICC began in
2002, less than a year after the September 11
th

5. attacks. From a domestic level, the US ideology of the time
lent itself to rejecting participation in the ICC. Individual
ideology of the average American exhibited fear, uncertainty,
and massive patriotism. The US not only refused to participate
in the ICC, but also petitioned for immunity for UN
peacekeepers. The US was granted immunity for one year. In
2004, the US tried to renew immunity. UN Secretary General
Kofi Annan warned providing immunity for UN peacekeepers.
Annan argued that the renewal "would discredit the Council and
the United Nations that stands for the rule of law and the
primacy of the rule of law." (Johansen 10) At an individual
level, Kofi Annan is rejecting the US and their ideology of
superiority.
Once all perspectives are taken into account, it seems that the
only course for the United States is to continue to reject
participation in the International Criminal Court. In an ideal
world, I believe that joining the ICC would strengthen ties
throughout the world and grow interdependence. However, the
risk is too high. By rejecting participation, the US retains power
and also safeguards military personnel and peacekeepers. It
seems that even if executive orders were given for the US
joined the ICC, the backlash would be harsh. There would be
great pushback from the military who are stationed abroad and
from realist who’d deem this power shift as a gradual demise of
the United States power. At this point in time, the United States
should not join the International Criminal Court. The risk far
outweighs the reward.
Work Cited:
Johansen, R. C. (2006). The impact of US policy toward the
International Criminal Court on the prevention of genocide, war
crimes, and crimes against humanity.
Human Rights Quarterly
,
28
(2), 301-331.
Nau, Henry R.

6. Perspectives on International Relations: Power, Institutions, and
Ideas
. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2007. Print.