Why United States Absence From International Criminal Court (ICC)?

Why United States Absence from International Criminal Court (ICC)?
Introduction
The United States has support the creation of international courts to prosecute serious violations of human rights namely Nuremberg and Tokyo atrocities chase committed during World War II. Since then, the US is an important supporter of the creation of the Ad Hoc International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), both of which were approved by the Security Council. However, there was the different story for International Criminal Court (ICC). In fact, the United States did not ratify the Rome Statute of ICC nor participating in the Court which exercised their jurisdiction as a permanent international
The United States not only believes that these shortcomings will have a serious negative impact on the legitimacy of the entire judicial system but also the ICC will be used as a tool to target the United States. From many reasons for the United States to support the withdrawal of the ICC, a subject remains unchanged: the International Criminal Court is not in the interests of the United States. Participation in such an uncontrollable institute will not be in the national interests of the United States. Once vested with the power to review and judge United States foreign and defense policies, there is no doubt that the ICC will use this authority. The offenses listed in the Rome Statute are all defined broadly and could be applied on an even wider basis by the court in practice. This is particularly true with respect to the allegation that is most likely to be brought against U.S. forces causing “disproportionate” civilian casualties and property damage. The standard of ICC will allow the prosecutors and judges in the position of reviewing and judging any United States military action which resulted in civilian casualties, and determining for themselves whether it was justified without consideration of the importance operation to U.S. national interests, and accountability to the American people. While ratification of the Rome Statute would make
The ICC is an inappropriate vehicle to promote the international law of the envelope or the definition of the early offense itself is politically controversial (such as the use of nuclear weapons or the crime of aggression). Elements give meaning to the principle of legality, Nullum crimen sine lege ("no crime without law"), and the requirements of any guidance should be how to prove the sponsor and the defense lawyer than it should be defended against. It is so important to United State are concerns that ICC judges – in the absence of elements - can apply them differently, and are not always associated with the experience of shaping the unforeseen patterns of the law. Such judicial activism is improper for anybody indirectly accountable to the people, it is particularly applicable to criminal courts. The United States government has been seeking bilateral non-surrender agreements (BIAs), or so-called “Article 98” agreements and other known as “American Service Members’ Protection Act” as the shield United States citizens which only the ICC’s jurisdiction. Moreover, the agreements constitute a breach of international law if signed state parties of ICC and many ICC advocates condemn the U.S. BIAs as an inexcusable attempt to gain immunity from the crimes under the Rome