Hi 23° | Lo 8°

Letter: Time has come for world court

An alternative to war is a world court. The idea first surfaced in 1919 at the Paris Peace Conference. It resurfaced in 1937 at the Geneva Conference. In 2002 a treaty was signed by 60 countries: the Rome Statute, which defined what an International Criminal Court would have jurisdiction over and how it would function. Today, the ICC has 122 countries on board. The United States has refused to ratify its membership and has said that it does not intend to become a member or “state party” of the ICC. Why not?

A world court would be the answer to ending the United States’ current role of global policing. This self-imposed authority is costing U.S. taxpayers a chance for universal health care, affordable housing, jobs, education and a host of other things. If the U.S. supported the ICC and helped lead the rest of the world’s nations to ratify membership to the ICC, it would gain strength and credibility. We would have a way to bring justice to war criminals such as Bashar al-Assad without having to go it alone.

Signing on would make the U.S. vulnerable to scrutiny of its own military actions. This is most likely the reason for not ratifying membership. However, if peace is truly desired, all nations must come clean with their past and be willing to admit error and wrongdoing.

The time has come to change our military course and support international cooperation. The ICC holds much promise. Our elected officials need to hear from the citizenry. Please include the discussion of supporting the ICC when you contact your elected officials.


East Andover

Legacy Comments1

This position is naive in the extreme. Do you know the political background of the 'world court"? What is the third world's concept of fairness?

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.