Annual Meeting 2008
ABA Supports International Criminal Court
Posted Aug 11, 2008 12:45 PM CST
By Edward A. Adams
The United States should be more involved with the International Criminal Court, even though the United States doesn't recognize the ICC's authority over members of the U.S. government, according to a resolution passed this afternoon by the ABA’s 555-member policy-making House of Delegates.
The House urged the government to cooperate with the court’s investigations and proceedings and participate in the court’s governing body—including in an upcoming conference to review the court’s operations.
Concerned the court would target U.S. soldiers, the Bush administration has refused to participate in the court’s workings and has encouraged allies to also avoid involvement in the court.
“The ICC has been castigated as a threat to U.S. interests. Those criticisms, however, were made before the ICC established a track record. After six years of operation, the ICC has proven itself to be a responsible judicial institution. The ICC has undertaken four investigations in Africa of particularly horrendous situations, and it has acted prudently and without political bias,” according to the report for Resolution 108A (PDF).
The resolution passed by an overwhelming voice vote. No one spoke in opposition.
Annual Meeting 2008:
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in Web Comment Cost 2 Their Jobs
- NU Law Dean Adjusts 'Super Lawyers' Rankings to Reflect Law School Size
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
J.D.
Aug 11, 2008 1:03 PM CST
It’s absolutely DISGUSTING that the ABA would even consider putting the Supreme Court and the People of the United States under the power of an unelected, unaccountable foreign body.
Foreign, stateless courts are not simply a “threat to U.S. interests.” They’re a threat to sovereignty, accountability, and the rule of law generally.
The Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves.
With every resolution, the ABA makes itself less and less relevant.
We need the ICC
Aug 12, 2008 8:34 AM CST
Who else will hold this administration accountable for their war crimes and profiteering? Politically nominated judges sure can’t.
You’re partisan complaints about the evolving rule of law are what I find disgusting.
New England Bartender
Aug 13, 2008 1:47 AM CST
Since it is the stated goal of the executive bureacracy of the USA (for over three decades!) to support and encourage a UN-based world gov’t, the ICC would appear to be the most rational judicial choice available. I find both partisan views unfortunate. Perhaps you were simply being exemplarily antagonistic?
J.D.
Aug 13, 2008 8:02 AM CST
“Partisan”?? Are you kidding me?
This has nothing to do with political parties. It has everything to do with power being invested IN THE PEOPLE. It’s about making power accountable.
You asked who will hold this administration accountable. Answer: THE PEOPLE OF THE U.S.
That’s the way a constitutional republic operates. Anything else is a dangerous effort to create even less-accountable powerful entities.
The notion of “world government” was advanced by Hitler. Is that what you really want?
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.