In “Who Shall Be Judge?: The United States, the International Criminal Court, and the Global Enforcement of Human Rights,” author Jamie Mayerfield breaks down international crime by discussing topics such as: the United States dispute with the International Criminal Court (ICC) on a proper model to achieve human rights enforcement to the various controversies that have stemmed from the International Criminal Court. The International Criminal Court was ratified by sixty countries in 2002, and therefore was “authorized to prosecute individuals for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity” (pg. 94-95).
Even though the International Criminal Court was ratified by a large quantity of countries, it was not accepted by one of the most influential and strongest countries, the United States. Numerous actions were made under the administration of George H. Bush that clarified the United States reluctance to support the ICC. President Bush had no intention …show more content…
112). Universal Jurisdiction can be problematic because it could lead to the practice of anarchic justice if granted enough multilateral endorsements. Also, Universal Jurisdiction could lead to politically motivated prosecutions, expose individuals to foreign courts without adequate due process protections, lead to the perception of unfairness and illegitimacy. Mayerfield argues that the ICC would avoid the previously stated problems because it has a high threshold for prosecutable crimes, it does nto offer protection to non-member states’ citizens, and in some cases because it avoids pursuing human rights violators who ought nonetheless to be brought before justice. Also, the ICC is simply constrained when it comes to resources, therefore Universal Jurisdiction problems could potentially be
Even though the International Criminal Court was ratified by a large quantity of countries, it was not accepted by one of the most influential and strongest countries, the United States. Numerous actions were made under the administration of George H. Bush that clarified the United States reluctance to support the ICC. President Bush had no intention …show more content…
112). Universal Jurisdiction can be problematic because it could lead to the practice of anarchic justice if granted enough multilateral endorsements. Also, Universal Jurisdiction could lead to politically motivated prosecutions, expose individuals to foreign courts without adequate due process protections, lead to the perception of unfairness and illegitimacy. Mayerfield argues that the ICC would avoid the previously stated problems because it has a high threshold for prosecutable crimes, it does nto offer protection to non-member states’ citizens, and in some cases because it avoids pursuing human rights violators who ought nonetheless to be brought before justice. Also, the ICC is simply constrained when it comes to resources, therefore Universal Jurisdiction problems could potentially be