Sovereignty of the United Nations

The Sovereignty of the UN Organization is a highly contentious issue.

Proponents wish for the United Nations to claim and wield ever-increasing power over nations, corporations and individual people. Their ultimate goal is a world government under the UN Organization.

Opponents want the UN to be subordinate to the sovereignty of each nation. They want the UN limited in scope to a meeting place where agreements or treaties are worked out among sovereign states - not "under UN authority".

UN Sovereignty and the ICC

Much of the controversy in the last two decades has been over such bodies as the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the refusal of the United States of America to endorse it.

ICC proponents accuse the US of wanted to evade accountablity under international law, of trying to be "above the law". They imply that the US refusal is tantamount to - or even the precise equivalent of - a defiant expression of intent to flout international norms. Thus, the US is seen as worse than average, or even sub-par, in terms of respecting human rights norms, particular treaties regarding war crimes, genocide, et al. This evaluation is made not on the history of American actions, but purely on the basis of its refusal to submit to the "authority" of the ICC.

ICC opponents - chiefly the US and its allies - argue that granting authority to the ICC would be a fatal step down the slippery slope of giving up US sovereignty. (Proponents give the rejoinder that as a permanent member of the Security Council the US could always, over-rule a court decision, but this prospect has not comforted the Bush administration.)

Paul Kahn wrote:
:"The conflict over the Court today is so intense not because the practical stakes are high, but because the jurisdiction of the Court has become the site for a symbolic battle between law and politics. Supporters of the Court tend to believe that twentieth century politics led to the devastating violence of that century. On their view, politics itself is dangerous; indeed, it is the source of the problem for which the Court is to be the answer. In this new century, the politics of vital national interests should be replaced by the managerial and technocratic sciences of the welfare state, on the one hand, and a regime of universal law, on the other. Both constrict the space that remains open for the traditional politics of nation-states. That space should extend no further than the health and well-being of populations."

Senator Jon Kyl argued:

:"We must recognize the unique nature of our position in the world, and the historical tendency of non-democratic leaders to use international institutions purely to score political points against the United States. Ceding criminal authority to an unaccountable and politicized ICC would hardly advance peace and security in today's world."

Sen. Kyl is asserting that the ICC is unaccountable and that the likelihood of it becoming politicized by unscrupulous parties is a risk too great to be undertaken. He has also argued that the US holds itself to a high enough standard of justice, without any international court, and on that basis challenges the contention by ICC supporters that the US is self-interestedly pursing a rogue course.

Main Menu

See Also

Main Menu