Brett Schaefer And Steven Groves

1751 Words8 Pages
Brett Schaefer and Steven Groves believes the United States decision was justifiable. They argue that the International Criminal Court has a worthy purpose, but still has issues that need to be addressed before the United States would join the court. Schaefer and Groves explain the Article 98 Agreement and the American Service Member Protection Act. Also their argument contains the five concerns the Bush Administration had about joining the ICC, but the two major concerns regard the fear of political abuse of power and also the threat to national sovereignty. In contrast, Michael P. Scharf believes the United States decision was unjustifiable. He argues, the conference in Rome attempted to compromise; however, the United States was not satisfied with the modifications. What makes the refusal unjustifiable is because the United States did not want be subjected to prosecutions and they did not want to take responsibility for their actions. Schaefer and Groves’ argument contains facts. As an example, the International Criminal Court does not have a clear definition of what the crime of aggression is and has yet to define the crimes it claims jurisdiction over (p. 152). This fact supports why the United States’ decision is justifiable because their military actions could be charged by enemy countries since there is no clear definition of what aggression means. Another example is that the International Criminal Court can prosecute an individual from a country that is not party

    More about Brett Schaefer And Steven Groves

      Open Document