The International Criminal Court and landmines: what are the consequences of leaving the US behind?

Abstract

The paper examines the main reasons of the United States not joining the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the Anti-Personnel Mines Treaty and discusses the consequences of this failure. It also makes some comparative observations on the 'unilateralism' of the United States vis à vis human rights treaties. It concludes that the objections of the United States, both with regard to the International Criminal Court Treaty as well as to the Anti-Personnel Mines treaty are primarily based upon its 'special global military responsibilities'. This is, in part, a hypocritical attitude. But the US also advances other differential arguments against the treaties that cannot be dismissed as being simply irrelevant to the subject matter of both conventions. It is also the sovereign right of the US not to accept international treaty obligations that it deems as being not in conformity with its national interest. As to the consequences, it is argued that there will be more difficulties in effectively implementing the conventions without American participation. Another consequence may be that the US will be viewed as continuing to set a bad example in the development of international law by claiming special privileges and immunities.