Skip to main content
Article
United States Opposition to the 1998 Rome Statute Establishing an International Criminal Court: Is the Court's Jurisdiction Truly Complementary to National Criminal Jurisdictions?
Journal Articles
  • Jimmy Gurule, Notre Dame Law School
Document Type
Article
Publication Date
1-1-2008
Publication Information
35 Cornell Int'l L.J. 1 (2001-2002)
Abstract

Although the United States supports the creation of a permanent International Criminal Court (ICC), it opposes such a court as set forth in the 1998 Rome Statute because it leaves open the potential for United States military personnel and government officials to be prosecuted for unintended loss of civilian life. Can the United States formulate a legal argument to support its view that inadvertent civilian casualties should not be considered a war crime within the jurisdiction of the ICC? The article argues that it can because the ICC’s jurisdiction under the Rome Statute is not complementary to national prosecutions held in good faith. It also notes that the mens rea requirements for proving a war crime under Article 8 of the Statute are unclear. Lastly, the article points out that the Statute expands traditional notions of command authority by allowing the Court to try and convict military commanders and government leaders for serious breaches of humanitarian law, even if they have little or no direct formal authority over subordinates responsible for these breaches.

Comments

Reprinted with permission of Cornell International Law Journal.

Citation Information
Jimmy Gurule. "United States Opposition to the 1998 Rome Statute Establishing an International Criminal Court: Is the Court's Jurisdiction Truly Complementary to National Criminal Jurisdictions?" (2008)
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/jimmy_gurule/9/