海角大神

The United States under the Obama administration has developed an increasingly close working relationship with the International Criminal Court in The Hague. But that growing engagement with a controversial institution of international law was unable to prevent the ICC from expanding the scope of its work to include the murky crime of 鈥渁ggression,鈥� a move the US had vehemently opposed.

At the 111-nation ICC鈥檚 first review conference that wrapped up last week in Kampala, Uganda, delegates decided to expand the international court鈥檚 purview to include the crime of aggression 鈥� a crime that only the US has successfully tried, in the post-World War II tribunals in Nuremburg and Tokyo.

State Department officials say the US, which is not a signatory to the ICC, was able to mitigate the drawbacks of such an expansion of the court鈥檚 reach, primarily by putting off any prosecution of the newest international crime until at least 2017.

But some critics say the US failure to stop the enshrining of 鈥渁ggression鈥� as an international crime demonstrates the limits of President Obama鈥檚 multilateralist vision 鈥� and sets the US on a collision course with the ICC when the issue comes up again later in the decade.

鈥淭he fact remains that the Obama administration鈥檚 vaunted 鈥榚ngagement鈥� strategy was only able to check the ICC鈥檚 move towards defining 鈥榓ggression,鈥� not stop it entirely,鈥� says Brett Schaefer, an expert in international institutions at the Heritage Foundation in Washington. 鈥淎nd it sets the US up for another battle in 2017 when the ICC鈥檚 advocates will make another push to activate the ICC鈥檚 jurisdiction over 鈥榓ggression.鈥欌��

The US confirmed its new footing with the world鈥檚 first permanent court for trying war crimes and crimes against humanity, US officials say, although they acknowledge that the US did not get everything it wanted in Kampala. The Rome Statute establishing the ICC was finalized in 1998, but the court did not begin to function until 2002, when the minimum 60 countries ratified it.

US participation in the Kampala conference 鈥渞eset US relations with the court from hostility to positive engagement,鈥� says State Department legal adviser Harold Koh. He says the US focus at the review conference was on efforts to 鈥渟trengthen justice on the ground鈥� in countries so that eventually their judicial systems will be strong enough to take on the kinds of human-rights work the ICC addresses.

Mr. Koh says that focus was particularly well-received in Africa, 鈥渨here there is a strong desire to have these cases tried at the national level.鈥�

Some ICC critics have also noted that the court has only taken up two cases so far, both involving African countries 鈥� one involving the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda, and the other regarding Sudan 鈥� and they dismiss the largely European-Union funded court as a colonial institution pressing Western interests.

But the US increasingly sees the value of the ICC, especially as it has tried cases that begged for international intervention.

鈥淚f it weren鈥檛 for the ICC [in cases like Sudan or Uganda] you would have had to set up a special tribunal,鈥� says Stephen Rapp, the State Department鈥檚 coordinator for war crimes issues.

One of the main US concerns in seeing 鈥渁ggression鈥� added to the ICC鈥檚 jurisdiction was the impact it could potentially have on US military operations abroad. But Koh says the US successfully negotiated the 鈥渁ggression鈥� statute鈥檚 wording so that US forces won鈥檛 be susceptible to it.

鈥淣o US national can be prosecuted for 鈥榓ggression鈥� while the US is not a signatory鈥� to the ICC, he says.

Related:

International Criminal Court eyes role beyond war-crimes trials

Sudan vote is 'a Hitler election,' says ICC prosecutor Ocampo