European Affairs

A Step Toward Relevance at the International Criminal Court     Print Email

By all reports, the review conference of the International Criminal Court (ICC), in Kampala earlier this year, is turning out to be a good-news story, both for the US, which ironically does not submit to the jurisdiction of the Court, and the world ,which has an interest in a strong international voice against war crimes and atrocities and aggression. The conference was previewed by European Affairs in the July 2010 issue.

The marquee event on the agenda was to attempt to define and activate “aggression” as a prohibited act that would be subject to Court sanctions and punishment. The US was uncomfortable with the idea of a process under which its “preemptive” wars and police actions could be made subject to the Court’s jurisdiction on the motion of one of the 111 state parties. At the same time, the US has a strong interest in having an international tribunal that can address “bad” acts of aggression like Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait.

With the US acting as a non-voting observer, the conference not only “activated” the crime of aggression, but also did so in a way that safeguards US concerns.  The possibility of US soldiers or officials being hauled before the Court for the crime of aggression remains as remote as ever.  At the same time, the Court has expanded its jurisdiction over “rogue” acts of aggression.

As reported by Prof. David Scheffer, who attended the meetings, the conference defined a “crime of aggression” as when state leaders plan or execute an act of aggression that constitutes “by its character, gravity and scale” a “manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.”  A prohibited “act of aggression” is the use of armed force by one state against another state in a manner inconsistent with the U.N. Charter.

So where is the “get out of jail” card for the US?   For a non-state party, such as the U.S., to become subject to the Court on impermissible “aggression” , the matter must be referred to the Court by the Security Council, on which the US sits with veto power.  Acts of state parties may be referred by the Security Council, but there is a mechanism wherein the Court can act against these countries even without a referral.

In short, almost everyone went home happy.   Aggression is “activated” and a way has been found to allow the US to participate and to support as a non-party.  To the surprise of critics, the US delegation behaved itself well for the most part, resisting the temptation to lecture and otherwise act like a superpower.  It tried hard to act like the observer it was, but at the same time provided helpful support.

The US worked closely with the British and French, who fronted US concerns.   In the end, there seemed to be general consensus that it was good for the US to be involved, notwithstanding its position of not submitting to the Court’s jurisdiction, except under a Security Council referral.

And as a result, the Court has emerged stronger and possibly more relevant, even though the “aggression” jurisdiction will not become effective for several years.

Bill Marmon is Managing Editor of European Affairs

  • High Skills versus Family-Based Immigration Policy: Complex Considerations.

    By Nicholas Zill

    In the current era of rapid demographic and technological change, and massive refugee flows, there has been much debate in European nations and in the US about immigration policies. One of the major points of contention is whether preferences should be given to would-be entrants on the basis of their high skills (merit-based immigration) or their family ties to individuals already residing in the country (family reunification).

    Read more ...

UMD Jean Monnet Research Project

Infrastructure Planning and Financing: Lessons from Europe and the United States

The University of Maryland has received a Jean Monnet grant from the EU to conduct a series of policy exchanges between Europe and the US on filling infrastructure needs and the utility of public/private partnerships as the financing mechanism. If interested in participating in or receiving more information about these exchanges, please contact Rye McKenzie (

Read more ...

New from the Bertelsmann Foundation

The Bertelsmann Foundation is an independent, nonpartisan and nonprofit think tank in Washington, DC with a transatlantic perspective on global challenges.

"Edge of a Precipice" by Nathan Crist

"Newpolitik" by Emily Hruban


Summer Course