چكيده لاتين :
In 1940s, the United States contributed to international efforts aimed at replacing a new law-centered system in the chaotic world after the war. For this purpose, new international regulation was established which would limit the use of armed forces, and improve the protection of manʹs human rights during armed conflicts. Today, this set of regulations has been called "International Humanitarian Law".
However, today, in the beginning of the twentieth one century, powerful countries have been committed by this very set of regulation, the carrying out of which have been a hindrance to them. The United States treats the laws that bind its national authority and critical interests hostilely. In the meantime, the 11 September events have been used as a convenient pretext for the justification of Bush Administrationʹs efforts to reconstruct the international law system, including its failure to adopt Rome Statute in the case of international criminal court, by arguing that international laws fail to meet the worldʹs new challenges.
Focusing on international criminal court as one of the most important mechanisms of humanitarian law, this article tries to address this issue from a political and legal point of view. Although the deliberate ignoring of such set of laws on the part of America in the name of security and national interests is referred to, it follows that there is little relation between written international law and how this system actually works. However, we want to point to the fact that international law, however defective and limiting it may be, is necessary. It, at worst, reflects the standards of statesʹ legitimate behavior, and it becomes necessary to abide by them, if statesʹ performance is to be justifiable.
