The Jurisdiction of the ICC in Relation to The Great Powers. The U.S.' Impact on Sovereignty and Authority (PDF)

Essay from the year 2023 in the subject Law - European and International Law, Intellectual Properties, grade: 1,0, Göteborg University (Rechtswissenschaft), course: International Criminal Law, language: English, abstract: How can the U.S. arguments regarding the ICC as a threat to state sovereignty be assessed? How is the ICC as an institution affected by the fact that the U.S. - one of the Permanent Five - is not part of the Rome Statute?
The ICC, being the world's first permanent international criminal court, was established to prosecute individuals for "the most serious crimes of international concern", namely genocide; crimes against humanity; war crimes; and the crime of aggression. Some controversies among states arose during the establishment, primarily concerning the court's jurisdiction and its effects on state sovereignty. The clash between the authority of the ICC and the sovereignty of states has thereafter repeatedly been up for discussion. The U.S. is often depicted as one of the main opponents to the ICC due to the court's alleged impact on state sovereignty. What may be considered ironic in the context is that the U.S. initially constituted one of the key creators of the court, to ultimately neither sign nor ratify its statute.

An argument that has been put forward by the U.S. is that there is no need for an external juridical body for such a well-established, sovereign state as the U.S. However, such a body would serve a purpose for other states, which do not meet the high U.S. standards. This argument shows clear tendencies of so-called American exceptionalism, which is the idea that the U.S. is superior to other states for historical, ideological or religious reasons. What makes this standpoint further interesting is that the U.S., despite not being part of the Rome Statute, may refer cases to the ICC in its capacity as one of the permanent members of the UNSC - which they have, on several occasions. In other words, the U.S. appears to be in the position to exercise indirect control over an international institution which their own nationals cannot be subjects to.