The new International Criminal Court has sparked a fair bit of debate, especially in the United States. In July of last year James W. Skillen, of the Center for Public Justice, wrote a Capital Commentary in favour of US adherence to the court. In November First Things editor Fr. Richard John Neuhaus wrote a brief Public Square article disputing Skillen's position. In the first quarter issue of CPJ's Public Justice Report, Alaine Gherardi wrote a lengthier and highly persuasive article in support of the ICC, "The International Criminal Court: Out of the Blocks or on the Block?" Now John M. Czarnetzky and Ronald J. Rychlak have written a First Things opinion piece, "A Court Out of Order," in the April 2003 issue.

I did not find Fr. Neuhaus all that persuasive against Skillen. However, it seems to me that Czarnetzky and Rychlak make a case that is more formidable against the ICC. They argue that a permanent court lacks the ability to incorporate the sort of flexibility characteristic of domestic criminal justice systems, where, for example, it might become necessary to mitigate the severity of the letter of the law in the interest of doing justice in the larger sense. Would South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission have been allowed to carry on its work under the ICC regime? Moreover, "there’s the problem that the ICC is an independent entity with no legislative or executive branch to check its power." I look forward to reading a response to Czarnetzky and Rychlak by ICC supporters.