The United States can perfectly better serve its security interests, under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and subject itself to the constraints of international law, provided that the aggressions of the International Criminal Court are limited to cases approved by the Security Council of the United Nations. This would effectively protect the United States against a possible prosecution while it would allow to control, through its veto in the Security Council, other prosecutions. Otherwise the United States would fall under a double standard, when they seek to control the behavior of other Governments, without accepting the corresponding limitations of their own conduct.   Serious violations of human rights and war crimes committed during the Second World War demonstrated the need to implement mechanisms to prosecute those responsible for these atrocities. In this way, the international community decided back then to create tribunals in Nuremberg and Tokyo, formed by both in the first step towards the consolidation of international criminal justice. The Cold War prevented the establishment of an International Criminal Court of a permanent nature, a difficulty that would be extended until the end of the 1980's, with the fall of the Berlin wall, a possibility was newly opened by creating a court with universal jurisdiction for the most serious cases of violation of human rights and international humanitarian law, which was accentuated with the humanitarian crises that occurred by the civil wars in Rwanda and Yugoslavia. The ICC formed by 120 States adopted in 1998, the Rome Statute, is the first international jurisdiction with universal vocation and aspiration; competent to prosecute individuals for crimes of war, genocide, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression. Added to these serious crimes, at the request of the Court itself, were sexual offenses, torture as an illegal instrument of war and the elimination of "receiving a higher order", as a valid defense of criminal responsibility or liability. It should be emphasized that the ICC is a complementary body of the national jurisdiction, and is only competent in cases where the state cannot or does not want to prosecute the accused. However, the United States did not ratify it, and even withdrew its signature from the Rome Statute and proceeded to begin a campaign against the ICC.

The ICC has jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force of the Statute which was the first of July 2002, and the Court may only exercise its jurisdiction if the State on whose territory the crime in question has occurred, or the State of nationality of the accused of the crime, is part of the Rome Statute, and if not being so, agrees to accept such jurisdiction by expressing declaration. As we said ut supra the United States did not sign the Rome Statute, with which the ICC has no jurisdiction over its nationals. The signatory states pledged ...

1. The United States can perfectly better serve its security
interests, under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal
Court (ICC) and subject itself to the constraints of international
law, provided that the aggressions of the International Criminal
Court are limited to cases approved by the Security Council of
the United Nations. This would effectively protect the United
States against a possible prosecution while it would allow to
control, through its veto in the Security Council, other
prosecutions. Otherwise the United States would fall under a
double standard, when they seek to control the behavior of other
Governments, without accepting the corresponding limitations
of their own conduct.
Serious violations of human rights and war crimes committed
during the Second World War demonstrated the need to
implement mechanisms to prosecute those responsible for these
atrocities. In this way, the international community decided
back then to create tribunals in Nuremberg and Tokyo, formed
by both in the first step towards the consolidation of
international criminal justice. The Cold War prevented the
establishment of an International Criminal Court of a permanent
nature, a difficulty that would be extended until the end of the
1980's, with the fall of the Berlin wall, a possibility was newly
opened by creating a court with universal jurisdiction for the
most serious cases of violation of human rights and
international humanitarian law, which was accentuated with the
humanitarian crises that occurred by the civil wars in Rwanda
and Yugoslavia.
The ICC formed by 120 States adopted in 1998, the Rome
Statute, is the first international jurisdiction with universal
vocation and aspiration; competent to prosecute individuals for
crimes of war, genocide, crimes against humanity and the crime
of aggression. Added to these serious crimes, at the request of

2. the Court itself, were sexual offenses, torture as an illegal
instrument of war and the elimination of "receiving a higher
order", as a valid defense of criminal responsibility or liability.
It should be emphasized that the ICC is a complementary body
of the national jurisdiction, and is only competent in cases
where the state cannot or does not want to prosecute the
accused. However, the United States did not ratify it, and even
withdrew its signature from the Rome Statute and proceeded to
begin a campaign against the ICC. The ICC has jurisdiction
only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force
of the Statute which was the first of July 2002, and the Court
may only exercise its jurisdiction if the State on whose territory
the crime in question has occurred, or the State of nationality of
the accused of the crime, is part of the Rome Statute, and if not
being so, agrees to accept such jurisdiction by expressing
declaration. As we said ut supra the United States did not sign
the Rome Statute, with which the ICC has no jurisdiction over
its nationals. The signatory states pledged to fulfill this
commitment and allow the control, prevention and repression
against any injury to the fundamental rights of people.
Washington struggles to immunize the prosecution of war
crimes by U.S. citizens, and is in fact, doing everything
possible to achieve this.
It is important to clarify that the crimes under the Court's
jurisdiction do not prescribe. The ICC can only impose
maximum penalties of 30 years in prison and, of exceptional
form, life imprisonment if the extreme gravity of the case
warrants it, but can never condemn to death. However, United
States move increasingly away from the International Criminal
Court.
The Bush administration was heavily concerned about the
possible prosecution of its military, by the ICC, since the high
command of the North American military, responsible for the
Iraq war, committed the crime of "aggression", which is

3. punishable by the International Criminal Court. Even former
President George W. Bush himself would be responsible, for it
was he who gave the order to attack and invade Iraq. We must
remember that on top of the illegal invasion by U.S. troops in
Iraq, U.S. used arguments that were based on false information,
so beside of the economical interest, it was a simple brutal act
of foreign aggression. As we must know, "Aggression" is
defined by the Rome Statute, such as; the use of the armed
forces by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or
political independence of another State, or in any way that
disagrees with the Charter of the United Nations.
The U.S. Government often violates the sovereignty of other
countries on the grounds and arguments that violations of
human rights are occurring in them. At the same time, it
frequently supports the international prosecution of leaders of
other countries accused of committing war crimes. All the
while, it seems not to realize that what one preaches for others,
must preach for oneself.Despite its enormous power, United
States was in evidence, since their invasion of Iraq violated the
statutes of the United Nations. This opened a potential
prosecution for war crimes. That is the crux of the matter,
because the United States applies at odd behavior with
international law, with its own laws and then present itself to
the world as the guarantor of security and that before them, any
measure is necessary, possible and applicable, but not to others:
It is the manifested destiny so present in American politics and
that has caused so much damage to humanity. The policy of
double standards practiced by the American administrations has
begun to be unveiled in all its hypocrisy after the allegations
made by the former employee of the Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA) and former contractor for the National Security
Agency (NSA), Edward Joseph Snowden and that is
representing a major shift in the field of international relations.
For these reasons, every day it becomes harder to defend the
foreign policy of the United States throughout the world. The

4. setbacks, inconsistencies and double standards have led U.S. to
lose credibility around the world. There are numerous of
publications which question the long history of the United
States with links to state terrorism, giving indisputable signs of
the bloody war in Viet Nam, the secessionist raids against the
newly-installed African republics or confrontations to the
Central American revolutions. Many Latin American countries
that ended under the cruel military dictatorships, trained by the
U.S. embassies, met organized and funded terrorism by
Washington. Noriega in Panama was one of the many examples
of this. The use of the unmanned aircraft known as drones
became a symbol of provocation and an arrogant display of
power by the United States against Arab countries and the
Middle East, ignoring their national sovereignty and as a result,
leaving an unnecessary slaughter of innocents. With these
practices, Washington is establishing a dangerous international
precedent by sending drones to kill their enemies. No one is
above the law.
Works Cited:
Ross, Matthew. "Generation Apocalypse Now: The Vietnam
War's Cultural Legacy In The Global War On Terror." Journal
Of American Culture 36.4 (2013): 342-352. Academic Search
Premier. Web. 19 Mar. 2014.
WALLACE-WELLS, BENJAMIN. "The TRULY PARANOID
STYLE In AMERICAN POLITICS." New York 46.37 (2013):
30.MasterFILE Premier. Web. 19 Mar. 2014.
Vallet, Élisabeth. "The U.S. Decision-Making Process And
Conspiracy Theories." Conference Papers -- International
Studies Association (2008): 1-13. Academic Search Premier.
Web. 19 Mar. 2014.