International law refers to the system of rules that regulate the interaction between independent states (Goodwin-Gill & McAdam, 2010). The law also governs the rights and duties of the nationals of one country to the nationals of other independent countries. The US has consistently opposed the adoption and application of international law due to two main reasons. First, the country is reluctant to relinquish its sovereignty to an external entity (Goodwin-Gill & McAdam, 2010). Specifically, the US opposes international law so that it can pursue its political and economic interests at the global level without the constraints associated with complying with the policies or laws created by foreign institutions. As a superpower, the US believes that it has to set the political and economic agenda for the world. In order to achieve this objective, the country must eliminate the legal barriers created by international law.
Second, the US fears that supporting international law will enable foreign institutions to be used as political weapons against it. In this respect, the country continues to uphold double standards on sensitive issues such as international crime. The US is the most vocal supporter of the adoption of the international criminal justice system in other nations. However, it has refused to subject its citizens, military, and political leaders to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). For instance, the US believes that leaders such as President George Bush will be arrested and charged with war crimes if the country becomes a signatory of the Rome Statute, which created the ICC. In this respect, opposing the international law enables the US to avoid being embarrassed by its political rivals (Von & Taulbee, 2010).
Fairness of International Law
International law is impartial because it was created and adopted by several countries that continue to support it. Thus, it does not favor one or a group of countries. One of the strengths of international law is that cases have to be heard and determined by independent tribunals and judges. This enables judges to avoid bias by making independent decisions concerning international criminal cases. International law is also fair because its main objective is to protect the rights of the citizens of various countries without discrimination. As a result, the law enhances peace and cooperation at the global level by subjecting everyone to the same system of justice (Von & Taulbee, 2010). In addition, it acts as an alternative conflict resolution mechanism by providing guidelines that facilitate fair and peaceful manner negotiations.
International Law Discussion
The US has always taken several initiatives to disrupt the application of international law so that it can protect its interests. During the establishment of the ICC treaty, the US supported the idea that the Security Council should be responsible for screening cases. This would enable the US to have control over the court by rejecting any docket that it opposed (Gurule, 2008). However, this perspective was rejected by other countries since it was unfair. As a result, the US actively campaigned against the court and ensured that its citizens are immune from prosecution. Currently, the Obama administration provides economic aid to the court. However, it has no intention of joining the ICC. The implication of this decision is that US citizens and their leaders can commit crimes anywhere in the world and avoid prosecution. As a result, the US can easily impose its will on other countries in order to achieve its political and economic objectives.
References
Goodwin-Gill, S., & McAdam, J. (2010). The refugee in international law. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
Gurule, J. (2008). United States opposition to the 1998 Rome Statute establishing an International Criminal Court: Is teh court’s jurisdiction truly complementary to national criminal jurisdiction? Scholarly Works, 1(1), 422-423.
Von, G., & Taulbee, L. (2010). Law among nations: An introduction to public international law. London, England: Macmillan.