• This post explores the World Court and the Rome Statute. The Rome Statute can be read in the attached file~

The UN and World Justice:

  • The United Nations system, until recently, hasn’t enjoyed much judicial power, except with occasional “war crimes” tribunals such as those used to prosecute the Serbs and the alleged participants in the Rwandan civil war. The original International Court of Justice, better known as the World Court, was created by the UN Charter specifically to hear disputes between states, and not to try individual citizens
  • The newer International Criminal Court is very different.
  • The ICC was created in 1998 under the so-called Rome Statute, a 300-page document hammered out over years of negotiations, and came into force in 2002.
  • The ICC is sometimes billed as an entity as an entity separate from the United Nations, but in reality, the UN has guided the creation of the ICC from the earliest drafts of the Rome Statute.
  • Like all other international treaties, the Rome Statute was registered under UN authority. It is therefore subordinate to the United Nations, although it was created separately.
  • Described by one of its architects as “potentially the most important human rights institution created in 50 years,”

The Rome Statute (the ICC treaty) “repudiates the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence, and cancels the 4th of July.”

Notre Dame law professor Charles Rice

As with the UN Security Council, the ICC is intended to be a law unto itself;

Article 19 of the Rome Statute:

 stipulates that “the Court shall satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction in any case brought before it.” In other words, the ICC may decide to exercise jurisdiction wherever it pleases; no other branch of government, including the UN Security Council, can set limits on it.

With such an unlimited grant of power, it’s not too surprising that the architects of the ICC have arrogantly decided that the court shall have jurisdiction over the entire planet, including nations that haven’t ratified the ICC treaty .

  • The US signed the  treaty under Bill Clinton, but have not ratified it yet. They are  under ever increasing pressure to  do so.

Concerning Attributes of the Rome Statute:

  1. No guarantee of a speedy trial or a right to trial by jury
  2. no habeas corpus privilege
  3. Accused criminals may be taken overseas for trial by foreign judges and tribunals

***this might mean that American soldiers or other U.S. citizens accused of participating in “crimes against humanity” could be tried, convicted, and imprisoned in Europe or elsewhere, without the benefit of due process or any of the other rights and legal privileges guaranteed under American law.

Vague Verbiage:

  • Good laws, are written in clear, unambiguous language, as a safeguard against human ingenuity.
  • However, the Powers that Be don’t intend for the ICC to remain unchanged; they instead created an institution that, like the United Nations, is supposed to evolve over time.
  • Therefore, the language of the Rome Statute is ambiguous by design, to provide for broader and broader powers as the ICC grows in scope and influence


Article 5 defines the crimes that the ICC will have jurisdiction over:
1) Genocide: [defined as] defined in Section c of Article 6 as “causing serious bodily or mental harm” to members of any “national, ethnical, racial, or religious group.” What might constitute “mental harm”? Under such a broad term, the ICC might claim jurisdiction over any act
of so-called discrimination, from uttering racial slurs to condemning
homosexuality from the pulpit.

2) War Crimes: “intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population” and
“against civilian objects,” as well as “attacking or bombarding… towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives.” On the basis of such “war crimes,” U.S. military personnel could —and undoubtedly will, if the ICC has its way — be prosecuted for attacking, even accidentally, targets deemed civilian by biased foreign judges.

4) Crimes Against Humanity: defined in part as “persecution
against any identifiable group or collectivity based on political, racial, national, cultural, religious, gender …,or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law.” Again, language of this sort could easily be used to justify prosecuting any act of discrimination, as defined in the modern, politically correct sense.

• “Aggression”: Statute promises only that “the Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression once a provision is adopted … defining the crime and setting out conditions under which the Court shall exercise jurisdiction with respect to this crime.”*** The Court, in other words, may choose at some future time to define the crime of “aggression” any way it sees fit. In fact, it’s difficult to imagine a crime in which “aggression” in some form.


• Finally, Article 123 of the Rome Statute provides an open-ended amendment process by which additional crimes can be added to the ICC’s jurisdiction. In practical legal terms, this means that the ICC can be “upgraded” at any time in the future to have jurisdiction over any conceivable crime committed by anyone anywhere in the world

In Response to concerns of overreach and loss of sovereignty the powers that be argue:

1) They insist that as long as conditions of so called “complementarity” are observed by member states, there will be no need for the ICC to interfere with local jurisdictions.”

2) “Complementarity means that all courts, at all levels, will abide by the standards of the ICC, and implies that nations will change their laws, where necessary, to recognize UN-defined crimes dealing with discrimination, the environment, employment, or whatever the issue of the moment happens to be.

In Their Own Words:

world government is coming. Deal with it.” Wright admitted that, where world government is concerned, the “flaky” political fringe is right:
World government really is on the way, but, he maintained, “it’s a good idea.”

“Continental Drift” Robert Wright