Part Four of The Hypocrisy of the U.S. in International Standards
The U.S. is seen as the leader of the free world, the country that other countries look up and aspire to. It is the representation of freedom and democracy. If any country hopes to achieve legitimization (other countries view a country as truly democratic with goals in mind to create a better world order for those citizens and all humans, as well as have an accepted authority) in the international order it needs to please the United Nations (U.N.), though really it needs to please the U.S. The easiest way to this this then would be to mimic the U.S. While the U.S. and U.N. maintain rigorous standards for international legitimization and relations, the U.S. is a bit hypocritical in this approach. It argues that countries must sign the various resolutions, declarations, and conventions the U.N. creates in order to prove their commitment to democracy and thus their legitimization. The U.S., however, has opted out of many important and sometimes obligatory laws. Some of these include: the Law of the Sea Treaty, human rights treaties (on children, indigenous people, people with disabilities, and those experiencing enforced disappearance), conventions (against discrimination against women, cluster munitions, and against torture), the Kyoto Protocol, and the Mine Ban Treaty. Part Four will feature the Kyoto Protocol and the International Criminal Court.
The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 1997 committing members to setting internationally binding emission reduction targets. It aims to recognize that developed countries are the primary cause for current levels of Greenhouse Gas emissions and hopes to aid developing countries in industrializing and modernizing without such hazardous effects.
Two of the main reasons the U.S. hasn’t ratified the treaties is because it doesn’t requiring some developing nations (like China and India) are not required to reduce their emissions, and even if emissions are reduced, scientists say it will do little to slow the impact of climate change (so why bother trying); other reasons include that it could hurt the U.S. economy and that more research needs to be done to understand the technology.
Arguments for ratification include that richer, developed nations need to lead the way in establishing standards and protocols for lowering emissions as the world moves forward into an increasingly developed and industrialized state, and that by being included in the Protocol, the U.S. can negotiate more realistic terms.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) is an international, independent entity that tries individuals for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The original thought for an independent court came about after WWII and the Nuremberg Trials, but the ICC was created after the heinous events that took place during the Rwandan and Yugoslavian genocides and civil wars. The ICC was created through the Rome Statute, which has been ratified by 122 nations, signed by another 31- the U.S. has done neither (previously signed the treaty but then withdrew its intent of ratification).
The main reason the U.S. will not follow the ICC is because of the threat to sovereignty: the U.S. believes it can help suffering people because of it distinct uniqueness and that if the U.S. supported the ICC, it would have to change laws to reflect the ICC and thus U.S. law would be influenced by foreigners. Other reasons the U.S. will not acknowledge the ICC is because it may not be constitutional, as well as the fact that U.S. citizens, including Presidents, could be called up to the ICC and presidential pardon would not apply.
The main argument for the U.S. joining the ICC is that it would hold the U.S. to equal standards and thus protects not only foreign nationals from atrocities, but also U.S. citizens, because it is a impartial court. Another important argument is that the U.S. cannot be seen as the promoter of democracy and human rights if it doesn’t support the legitimacy of a non-partial court meant to prosecute atrocities and attempt to prevent future atrocities- it also seems like the U.S. has something to hide if it obstructs justice by preventing nationals being charged with these atrocities.
The U.S. pushes for developing countries to seek legitimacy by adopting U.N. resolutions, and while it supports these resolutions, it will not commit to them. Does this mean the U.S. is losing legitimacy in the international sphere? For Part One, Part Two, and Part Three of this conversation, please click on the links.
