3 ms·

> Every president has declared the ICJ irrelevant. The Pentagon would send tanks to the White House if a President so much as hinted at accepting ICJ jurisdicti

• wahern 8y ago
  Signing and accepting jurisdiction are two different things. Clinton's contemporaneous statement (from Wikipedia): The United States should have the chance to observe and assess the functioning of the court, over time, before choosing to become subject to its jurisdiction. Given these concerns, I will not, and do not recommend that my successor, submit the treaty to the Senate for advice and consent until our fundamental concerns are satisfied. Nonetheless, signature is the right action to take at this point. I believe that a properly constituted and structured International Criminal Court would make a profound contribution in deterring egregious human rights abuses worldwide, and that signature increases the chances for productive discussions with other governments to advance these goals in the months and years ahead. Clinton thought that being a signatory with contingent intent would lend the ICC legitimacy even if the U.S. would never submit itself to its jurisdiction, and even if it was obvious to everybody it wouldn't submit itself to its jurisdiction. It's like the opposite of plausible deniability--plausible ratification. According to his logic, the fiction mattered. To others it was pointless.