The purpose of morality in foreign policy should be to protect our physical security, national sovereignty and the basic principles of life liberty and property. The International Criminal Court does nothing to further those things, and only serves to harm a few of them.

While individuals try to change the shape of foreign policy within the state, generally they stay within being nothing more than a representative of the state. While we may be able to point to a leader for a single policy, the state still pushes the agenda for the vast majority of the actions taken. This is especially true of foreign policy, as opposed to domestic policy where a leader can have greater influence on the actions of the state.

For the most part, our moral standards can be found within deontology, but in many cases that doesn't provide a single solution to an issue. This is when we should refer to consequentalism. Be it due to our Creator or something else, as the cause is not the important as the effect in this scenario, there are some basic moral standards that should be applied to governmental policies. One cannot simply depend on our deontological values to solve every problem in our lives, and that is when we need to start comparing the costs and benefits of a scenario.

The focus of the state should be internal; the people of the state should be focused on their own state. Every state has problems that need to be addressed and to try and divert from those problems with foreign affairs is a betrayal to the state and the people. The major goals of a state should consist of the physical security of the state and its citizens, the national sovereignty of the state itself, and basic freedoms of the people such as life, liberty, and property.

A state simply cannot exist without both physical security and national sovereignty. A state without physical security can be invaded, and be torn apart at the whim of other powers. A state without national sovereignty is nothing more than a mere puppet to foreign powers, at which point it may as well just seek admittance into the other state.

During the 18th century there were a great deal of famous writers who proposed that the government was nothing more than a mere compact between the state and its citizens. Many of these same writers also acknowledged the universal rights that citizens should have, such as life liberty and property. The citizens in these states need to realize that in order for such a compact to work that they need to pressure the state and be willing and able to fulfill their duty to overthrow the state if it has been proven to have broken the compact.

The state should try to stay away from foreign entanglements, and an active role in international law and similar policies is nothing but becoming entangled in the business of foreign powers. States generally know the difference between what is right and wrong and the various international norms. Unless it has to do with our physical security, national sovereignty or the fundamental rights of our citizens, then we should not be taking part.

While there are many rules of the state that are set in stone, they can never cover every possible scenario to arise. For these situations where there is no single answer to an issue, then one must revert to logic and a degree of consequentalism to determine a course of action.

An example of this could be that a state suspects that another state is going to try and violate the physical security of a state by invading it. While physical security is the top goal of the state, there are many ways to deal with that scenario. Be it various military options or even other options such as sanctions through tariffs, an action must be taken by the state. Which option to choose from would be left to comparing the cost and benefit of the option?

There has been controversy over the United States entering into the International Criminal Court. Would the ICC line up with such a moral standard?

While the ICC does little to limit the physical security of the United States, it does go a long way to harm the sovereignty of the country. The United States should not be forfeiting its own sovereignty over to an outside court which has the power to override the laws of the state and the will of the people within the state.

The ICC also poses a threat to the universal rights of the citizens of a state. This court would be able to deprive citizens of the states of their life, liberty and property. The citizens have made a compact with their government, and have yet to make a similar one to the ICC. A compact with the ICC would go to further violate the other moral reasons within the system.

To ICC is also a massive foreign entanglement at its very nature, and as such should be avoided by the state. As the state is drawn into foreign issues, it can find itself stuck between two positions that it opposes.

The ICC simply does not live up to the ethical standards that a state should be going after. This does not eliminate the existence of those who propose that the ICC would be a good thing, and even attempt to provide counter-arguments to support their claims.

One of the proposed benefits of the ICC is that it would help those in other countries who are dealing with civil war, genocide and human rights' abuses. The problem with this is that those people in those other countries should be standing up for their selves. When the state fails to uphold its end of the compact that was used to establish said state, it then becomes the duty of the citizenry to enact change within their state.

Another claim is that the ICC will help to punish war criminals. This point violates two ethical standards. First, it is making it appear that the United States should be involved in many wars to deal with war criminals instead of dealing with our national issues. Second, if we do go to war with another state and they obviously violate the internationally accepted norms, then we would be able to punish those responsible on our own.

The final claim is that the punishment of war criminals by the ICC will prevent future abuse if the persons involved in said abuses would have the fear of eventually being prosecuted. The only way that the people of the countries that will be abused by their governments is if the people do not stand up to the state and use force to carry out their side of the compact.

In general, the ICC is not a good idea for any state to be involved in, but more specifically, the United States should not be associated with it at all. The ICC violates many moral sticking points within the United States, and should not be allowed to get the chance to truly violate the rights of the citizens of the United States.

The state should try to stay away from foreign entanglements, and an active role in international law and similar policies is nothing but becoming entangled in the business of foreign powers.

In the 21st century, like it or not, we have a global economy, and our effects on the environment are global, too. The business of foreign powers, like it or not, impacts on local matters in a myriad of ways.

Isolationism for a modern state is impractical and unworkable.

States generally know the difference between what is right and wrong and the various international norms.

How do you imagine that international norms come about in the first place?

There has been controversy over the United States entering into the International Criminal Court. Would the ICC line up with such a moral standard?

The aim of the ICC is to prosecute human rights violations. As a principle of international law, no government or leadership of a state may legally violate the human rights of any human being - either its own citizens or the citizens of other states.

The only reason for backing away from agreeing to ICC jurisdiction is that a nation wants to be able to commit human rights violations with impunity.

In the case of the United States, it wants to be able to refuse to prosecute violators of human rights (either of its own citizens or of others) and to deny jurisdiction to a competent international tribunal which would be willing to undertake such prosecutions when the US was found morally and legally wanting.

While the ICC does little to limit the physical security of the United States, it does go a long way to harm the sovereignty of the country. The United States should not be forfeiting its own sovereignty over to an outside court which has the power to override the laws of the state and the will of the people within the state.

The ICC would only bring prosecutions for human rights violations in a case where the US refused to do so itself.

The ICC also poses a threat to the universal rights of the citizens of a state. This court would be able to deprive citizens of the states of their life, liberty and property.

Rubbish. The ICC has no control over the citizens of states.

The ICC simply does not live up to the ethical standards that a state should be going after.

You have the wrong end of the stick.

One of the proposed benefits of the ICC is that it would help those in other countries who are dealing with civil war, genocide and human rights' abuses. The problem with this is that those people in those other countries should be standing up for their selves.

The ICC prosecutes war crimes and crimes against humanity. It is not an army. On the other hand, its very existence ought to discourage governments, dictators and tyrants from committing crimes against humanity, for fear of being prosecuted later.

Another claim is that the ICC will help to punish war criminals. This point violates two ethical standards. First, it is making it appear that the United States should be involved in many wars to deal with war criminals instead of dealing with our national issues. Second, if we do go to war with another state and they obviously violate the internationally accepted norms, then we would be able to punish those responsible on our own.

1. The ICC can never force the US to go to war. That's a silly notion.
2. Right. The idea of the ICC is that it will punish where states refuse to be "responsible for our own". And that is what really worries the US.

The ICC violates many moral sticking points within the United States, and should not be allowed to get the chance to truly violate the rights of the citizens of the United States.

The right to immunity, you mean?

While the ICC does little to limit the physical security of the United States, it does go a long way to harm the sovereignty of the country. The United States should not be forfeiting its own sovereignty over to an outside court which has the power to override the laws of the state and the will of the people within the state.
How would it do that? The Constitution holds that all other courts are inferior to the SCOTUS, yes, but the ICC does not rule on the types of cases that the SCOTUS does, and vice versa (see the 11th Amendment). Also, cases that the ICC would normally cover on US soil would not fall under the "unwilling and/or unable" clause in the Rome Statute so the ICC wouldn't touch them. It is meant for situations like Rwanda, where there is no other capable judicial body.

In the 21st century, like it or not, we have a global economy, and our effects on the environment are global, too. The business of foreign powers, like it or not, impacts on local matters in a myriad of ways.

Isolationism for a modern state is impractical and unworkable.
Well said. Isolationists in this day and age remind me of the old southerners grumbling about the south rising again.

I don't really have an opinion on whether or not the US should get onboard the ICC, but it seems to me that it would be another institution that could become a tool for us. Speaking strictly from a realist standpoint, its teeth come from its member states, so it wouldn't encroach on our sovereignty, as far as I can see at least. It could be ignored when it became an impediment, but exploited when it served our own ends. Much like the UN.