States Republican officials oppose the idea of the ICC because of the realist, view that they interpret our government through. They do not believe that the goals of the ICC are attainable, and suspect that national states will follow the dictates of their national interest and ignore the laws and act in a self serving way, especially when it comes to protecting it’s citizens security. On the opposite side of the wing many democratic idealist see the International Criminal Court a way to promote a larger more real sense of world peace. I tend to agree more along the lines with the realist on the position, which is also an individual system analysis view on the ICC. I believe in parts of the purposed ICC but it threatens my safety as well as the sovereignty of the state in which I am a citizen.The only sense of thought I feel I can offer the situation is The United state has one of the longest forms of stable government in the world, and at this point is the leading force in international power. The U.S. seems to be controlling or policing most of the world, as well as helping to fund and rebuild many nations that have been worn torn and in shambles. To jeopardize our sovereignty and position ourselves to be tried by a jury that threatens to be a higher power than our court systems frightens me to the extend as I would almost not want to see the ICC develop at all. After reading through the ICC treaty I found many ideas that still should be revised and rethought. The adoption of an ICC might occur in military officials with high rankings to be framed for crimes and imprisoned by an international system that might not be legitimate.The proposed International Criminal Court poses serious threats to U.S. sovereignty and security. Congress and the Administration should declare unequivocally that the United States would not participate in an ICC that does not guarantee, at a minimum, the rights and privileges contained in the U.S. Cons...
