(CNSNews.com) - The Obama administration and Congress should consider working with the International Criminal Court (ICC), former Rep. Mickey Edwards (R-Okla.) and other members of the American Society of International Law (ASIL) told CNSNews.com on Friday.
 
Edwards spoke with CNSNews.com at the National Press Club, where the ASIL announced the findings of its new report, "U.S. Policy Toward the International Criminal Court."

Members of the ASIL panel said they are not yet recommending that the United States join the court. 

Conservatives, nonetheless, told CNSNews.com that they are wary of even taking steps towards working with the court because if the United States were to join, it would sacrifice sovereignty to the ICC. Further, joining the ICC could result in subjecting Americans and U.S. troops to politically motivated prosecutions.

“What we have proposed unanimously is not only continued active engagement with the ICC but increased participation, increased activity in giving the court the resources it needs that we can provide to help it achieve its goals,” Edwards said. “This is a recommendation not only to the Obama administration but it’s also a recommendation to Congress.”

The ICC was established by the United Nations in 2002 to prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

The 1998 treaty known as the “Rome Statute” that create dthe ICC was not signed by President Clinton until shortly before he left office in 2000. His administration never submitted the document to the Senate where it would have faced a tough two-thirds ratification vote for the United States to have become a member.

In 2002, when the court began operating, then-President George W. Bush effectively “unsigned” the document by submitting a letter to the U.N. stating that “the United States has no legal obligations arising from its signature.”

President Obama, however, indicated while running for the U.S. Senate in 2004 that he believed the United States should join the ICC.

“The United States should ratify the Rome Statute and become full partners in the International Criminal Court,” said Obama in September 2004. “The United States should cooperate with ICC investigations in a way that reflects American sovereignty and promotes our national security interests.”

In late January of this year, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, according to the Associated Press and other news outlets, stated in a closed meeting with the U.N. Security Council that the ICC "looks to become an important and credible instrument for trying to hold accountable the senior leadership responsible for atrocities committed in the Congo, Uganda and Darfur.”

Some conservatives, meanwhile, contend that joining the ICC would undermine U.S. sovereignty.

"The United Nations and the ICC are inherently incompatible with national sovereignty,” Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) said in commentary posted on his congressional Web site in 2002. “America must either remain a constitutional republic or submit to international law, because it cannot do both.”

But members of ASIL on Friday’s panel said it is possible both to remain a constitutional republic while being a member of the ICC.

“The statement that the design of the court is inherently incompatible with domestic prerogatives is simply demonstrably false based on the negotiating history of the court and the structure of the treaty,” said panelist Michael Newton, a professor at Vanderbilt Law School.
 
“The real question going forward is what is that actual conduct of the court? The court cannot function if it runs around the world and tramples on state sovereign prerogatives. Not only would it violate its own charter, but it simply could not function without state cooperation,” Newton said.

Edwards also admitted that it is possible that the ICC could be used for political motivations but said so far he has not yet seen evidence of such conduct.

“The concern that the court could turn out to be politically motivated and oppose U.S. interest and U.S. actions could happen and that’s why it has been important is to observe the court and observe the way the prosecutors have worked,” said Edwards. “To this point, there is no indication that these ideas are well founded.”

But Howard Phillips, chairman of the Conservative Caucus, told CNSNews.com that despite the court’s track record, membership could still have dangerous ramifications for American sovereignty.

“I think it’s always a mistake for us to subordinate U.S. laws and procedures to international bodies,” said Phillips.

Phillips said that the fact that Edwards and the panel are only pushing for engagement with the ICC rather than membership at this point, is little comfort to him.

“I am opposed to slippery slope politics,” said Phillips. “Once you get on the slope, you slide to the bottom. It’s always a danger to surrender the rights guaranteed to American citizens in the Constitution to an entity that is not bound by our Constitution.”

Brett Schaefer, a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, also said he thinks the United States should, in most cases, avoid joining, or even working with the ICC.

“Any kind of cooperation, whether financial support or sharing intelligence, has to be approached with extreme caution by the U.S., lest we open a door that cannot be closed,” Schaefer told CNSNews.com.
 
In addition to Edwards and Newton,  other ASIL panelists at Friday's event included former State Department legal adviser and former Deputy Defense Secretary William Taft IV; former U.S. federal appellate and International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia Judge Patricia Ward; and former deputy prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia David Tolbert.