[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 37, Number 1 (Monday, January 8, 2001)]
[Page 4]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Statement on the Rome Treaty on the International Criminal Court

December 31, 2000

    The United States is today signing the 1998 Rome Treaty on the 
International Criminal Court. In taking this action, we join more than 
130 other countries that have signed by the December 31, 2000, deadline 
established in the treaty. We do so to reaffirm our strong support for 
international accountability and for bringing to justice perpetrators of 
genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. We do so as well 
because we wish to remain engaged in making the ICC an instrument of 
impartial and effective justice in the years to come.
    The United States has a long history of commitment to the principle 
of accountability, from our involvement in the Nuremberg tribunals that 
brought Nazi war criminals to justice, to our leadership in the effort 
to establish the International Criminal Tribunals for the former 
Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Our action today sustains that tradition of moral 
leadership.
    Under the Rome Treaty, the International Criminal Court (ICC) will 
come into being with the ratification of 60 governments and will have 
jurisdiction over the most heinous abuses that result from international 
conflict, such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. The 
treaty requires that the ICC not supersede or interfere with functioning 
national judicial systems; that is, the ICC prosecutor is authorized to 
take action against a suspect only if the country of nationality is 
unwilling or unable to investigate allegations of egregious crimes by 
their national. The U.S. delegation to the Rome Conference worked hard 
to achieve these limitations, which we believe are essential to the 
international credibility and success of the ICC.
    In signing, however, we are not abandoning our concerns about 
significant flaws in the treaty. In particular, we are concerned that 
when the court comes into existence, it will not only exercise authority 
over personnel of states that have ratified the treaty but also claim 
jurisdiction over personnel of states that have not. With signature, 
however, we will be in a position to influence the evolution of the 
court. Without signature, we will not.
    Signature will enhance our ability to further protect U.S. officials 
from unfounded charges and to achieve the human rights and 
accountability objectives of the ICC. In fact, in negotiations following 
the Rome Conference, we have worked effectively to develop procedures 
that limit the likelihood of politicized prosecutions. For example, U.S. 
civilian and military negotiators helped to ensure greater precision in 
the definitions of crimes within the court's jurisdiction.
    But more must be done. Court jurisdiction over U.S. personnel should 
come only with U.S. ratification of the treaty. The United States should 
have the chance to observe and assess the functioning of the court, over 
time, before choosing to become subject to its jurisdiction. Given these 
concerns, I will not, and do not recommend that my successor submit the 
treaty to the Senate for advice and consent until our fundamental 
concerns are satisfied.
    Nonetheless, signature is the right action to take at this point. I 
believe that a properly constituted and structured International 
Criminal Court would make a profound contribution in deterring egregious 
human rights abuses worldwide and that signature increases the chances 
for productive discussions with other governments to advance these goals 
in the months and years ahead.