International criminal law has grown enormously over the last decade. With the International Criminal Court's legislation finally coming into play, I will be focusing on the reasons surrounding the United States withdrawal from the Statute. America's perception of it's responsibilities to international society has been questioned, but can this be related to their opposition to the Court " opponents of the Court use a concern for international order to disguise a policy motivated by a narrow conception of the national interest" (Ralph, 2003, p.195). The International Criminal Court (ICC) has successfully brought to surface the fundamental difference of opinion between America and the world concerning universal democracy. The extent of this can clearly be seen by the USA's foreign policy on communitarian concepts of justice, which will be analysed. The new jurisdiction can in theory bring to trial any person who has committed genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and or other atrocities. I will conclude the reality of this and look at future amendments to international law legislation that may be ratified due to the fundamental importance of nations" agreement on global justice.
The General Assembly decided that after the atrocities of Word War II the feasibility of an International judiciary should be examined. The International Law Commission established that such a court would be widely of benefit to society. Proposals for a draft statute were prepared in 1951. However a definition of aggression could not be decided upon and was therefore left pending until the assembly of parties could agree on a meaning, which would be in keeping with the charter of the UN. The Cold War brought any progression to a stand still and it was not until 1998 that the Rome Statute was ratified by the necessary sixty states. The International Criminal Court came of age just four years later.
