ICC advocacy in the US occurs on two levels: efforts to educate members of Congress and administration officials in Washington, DC and locally directed efforts to inform the American public and create grassroots pressure for US cooperation with the Court.

AMICC supports and promotes grassroots activity in support of the Court, including the formation of local alliances of individuals and organizations whose interests will be served and advanced by the ICC and thus by the US relationship with it. Local ICC alliances combine their diverse constituencies to create local public awareness of and support for the importance of US cooperation in a strong ICC.

AMICC's partner coalition, the Washington Working Group on the ICC (WICC) is the driving force behind the Washington advocacy campaign. Due to the realization that, while indispensable, efforts directed solely toward the Capital are not enough to attract the level of government attention and support needed to rebut the prevalent misinformation and disinformation circulating among our leaders and move this issue forward, AMICC was conceived to build a vocal ICC constituency around the US.

Below find basic background information on:

• Why hasn't the United States ratified the ICC Statute?
• Did the US "unsign" the ICC Statute?
• Why should the US support the ICC?
• How can I advocate for the ICC in the US?

Although the US Government signed the ICC Statute in December 2000, the Bush administration opposed it and was unwilling to join the ICC because:

• it claimed that the ICC potentially could investigate and try US citizens without US consent even though the US is not a party to the ICC Statute
• it said that the Court has too much unchecked power and fears that its prosecutor will be uncontrollable
• it said that the ICC could investigate and prosecute US leaders for the "crime of aggression
• it argued that the Court's very existence threatens US sovereignty
• it feared that the Court would be politically motivated against US leaders and soldiers
• it said that it prefers to support trials in the country where the atrocity took place
• it had constitutional concerns about the ICC Statute, particularly with the due process rights accorded defendants

No. On May 6, 2002, the Bush Administration announced that the US did not intend to join the Court and did not recognize any obligations arising from the December 31, 2000 US signature of the ICC Statute. The US did not physically remove its signature from the list; it essentially deactivated the legal force of its signature by sending a note to that effect to the treaty depositary, the UN Secretary-General. The US could arguably resume its signatory status with another note to the Secretary-General, although the Obama administration has expressed no intention to do so.

As a signatory to the ICC Statute, the US had no obligation to cooperate with the ICC. The signature only required the US not to actively defeat the object and purpose of the ICC. Because the US has always supported the basic principle that those who commit atrocity crimes should be held accountable internationally, its signature did not create a conflict with the US decision not to join the Court. However, given the Bush Administration's policy of active opposition to the ICC, the US signature of the ICC Statute arguably thwarted such an intended policy.

WHY SHOULD THE US SUPPORT THE ICC?

• The ICC is the legacy of more than 50 years of work, from the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials after World War II to the current ad hoc UN criminal tribunals, spearheaded by the US to promote justice through law.
  
  
• By turning its back on the ICC early on, the US forfeited to others a critical opportunity for international leadership and influence in shaping the evolution of the laws of war and international humanitarian law — being part of the ICC will give the US a stronger voice and credibility in developing future legal standards.
  
  
• US contributions to the drafting of the ICC Statute ensure the fair and effective operation of the Court. Continued and expanded US involvement and cooperation with the Court will greatly enhance the prospects that remaining US concerns about the Court would be addressed with careful consideration as the Court begins operations.
  
  
• If the US decided to join the Court it would be in a better position to protect itself against political attacks by expanding its influence and credibility.
  
  
• The Court protects American servicemembers by pressing foreign military powers to uphold the same standard of conduct the US has always imposed on itself — standards that protect American servicemembers in battle.
  
  
• By joining the Court, the US would be able to take advantage of the many benefits for States Parties. For example, the US could choose not to accept the Court's authority to try Americans for war crimes for seven years. During that period, the US could observe whether the Court acts inappropriately, and, if it does, the US could withdraw from the Court. US membership also would enable the US to nominate for election a judge on the Court and deeply influence the Court's overall administration.
  
  
• The ICC could help promote US foreign policy national security interests. For example, the ICC could greatly support and promote future US efforts to arrest and prosecute international terrorists charged with heinous large-scale attacks against US targets.

Please consider working with AMICC help further the cause of the ICC in the United States. We welcome new member organizations committed to the ICC and NGOs and activists working locally in support of the Court.

• Join or start local advocacy in your area.
  
  
• Learn about becoming an organization members.
  
  
• Organize a celebration or event on the ICC.