<<  <  >  >>

Page 10

forcement Agency, especially if the ICC's investigators

unknowingly conduct competing investigations.  To avoid that

problem, the FBI and the DEA could inform the ICC of their

investigations, but letting an outside organization know

about their sensitive work would increase the security risk

that confidential information will be unintentionally leaked

and investigations compromised.  What is more, putting the

offense of "drug trafficking" under the court's jurisdiction

further entrenches the ill-conceived drug war and throws up

another obstacle to a long-overdue reconsideration of drug

prohibition and its alternatives.

Other proponents of the ICC want to go even further and

have the final ICC statute include "forced pregnancy" as an

international crime.25  Typically, "forced pregnancy" has

been understood to mean repeated rape for the purposes of

impregnation, like those incidents reported during the war

in Bosnia.  But Brigham Young University law professor

Richard Wilkins fears that the wording could be abused to

bring lawsuits against countries that do not have liberal-

ized abortion laws, noting that the lawyers opposing Utah's

abortion control laws argued that "requiring a woman to give

a reason for a termination of her pregnancy constituted what

they called a compelled or forced pregnancy."26

Some proponents of the ICC even want the final statute

to contain wording that would give the court jurisdiction

over a host of new "crimes," including "committing outrages

upon personal dignity"27 and causing "serious threats to the

environment . . . [such as] the Chernobyl and Bhopal disas-

ters."28  Given that the definitions of those "crimes" are

not settled as a matter of international law, they are not

likely to be included in the final ICC statute, but a review

clause will probably be included, allowing states to meet

periodically to expand the court's purview to include them.

Some advocates of the ICC clearly want to expand the court's

domain to include those and other crimes, but they recognize

that many states are wary of having their government offi-

cials and corporate leaders called before an international

court.  Accordingly, those groups have made a deliberate

decision not to push for adding noncore crimes to the court-

's purview until after a treaty is ratified.  Donald W.

Shriver Jr. of the Faith-Based Caucus for an International

Criminal Court, for example, explains that

we will never have an ICC or any other effective

world court if powerful nations . . . insist on