I think the International Criminal Court could be a threat to

O children of the future, listen well to the words of John Bolton, a figure who stood at the intersection of international diplomacy and national security. He said, "I think the International Criminal Court could be a threat to American security interests, because the prosecutor of the court has enormous discretion in going after war crimes. And the way the Statute of Rome is written, responsibility for war crimes can be taken all the way up the chain of command." These words speak not only to the power and reach of the International Criminal Court (ICC) but also to the tension between justice and sovereignty, between the pursuit of accountability for war crimes and the protection of national interests. At the heart of this debate lies a fundamental question: how do we balance the pursuit of justice for humanity with the sovereign right of nations to act in their own defense?

To understand the essence of Bolton's words, we must first grasp the nature of war crimes and the role of the ICC. The International Criminal Court, established by the Rome Statute in 1998, was created with the noble aim of holding accountable those responsible for the most heinous acts in human history—acts like genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. It is a court that seeks to ensure that no individual, no matter how powerful, is above the law. And yet, as Bolton points out, the very reach of this court—the discretion of the prosecutor—can create tensions when national leaders and military commanders are brought to account for their actions in the heat of war.

Consider, O children, the Nuremberg Trials that followed the end of World War II, when the Allied powers sought to bring Nazi leaders to justice for their atrocities. Those trials were not simply about punishing the guilty; they were about sending a message to the world that no regime, no matter how powerful, could act with impunity. But in the aftermath, there arose questions about the power of victors to impose justice on the vanquished. The balance between retribution and peacebuilding became a fraught one, and over time, nations like the United States have wrestled with the question of how best to ensure justice while also protecting sovereignty and security. Bolton's concern is that the ICC's reach could, in certain circumstances, endanger a nation's ability to protect its own interests.

Let us reflect, O children, on the Vietnam War, a conflict that divided the world and left deep scars on the United States. Many questions surround the conduct of the war: Were the bombings of North Vietnam and Cambodia justified? Were the actions of the U.S. military, such as the My Lai Massacre, the result of systematic war crimes? In a world where courts like the ICC hold the power to bring individuals to justice for such actions, the question of accountability becomes complex. How can a nation act in defense of its interests and security if its commanders and leaders fear legal repercussions, whether at home or abroad? Bolton’s words reflect this anxiety, the concern that a court with unilateral authority might not fully consider the context of decisions made in the heat of war.

Bolton’s warning is not an argument against justice or the pursuit of accountability for atrocities. It is, rather, a call to caution, a reminder that while justice must be served, it must also be done in a way that does not undermine the ability of nations to defend themselves. The pursuit of peace and security must not be sacrificed in the name of idealistic justice. Nations must be able to act in defense of their citizens and interests without fear that their every military decision will be scrutinized through the lens of a distant, often disconnected, court. War is not a simple contest of good versus evil; it is a complex, chaotic realm where decisions must be made rapidly, and the full consequences of those decisions may not be apparent until much later.

And yet, O children, there is wisdom in the idea that justice must remain central, even in the midst of war. We must always strive to balance the need for security with the imperative to hold accountable those who commit heinous acts. The question, therefore, is not whether we should seek justice, but how we do so in a way that respects both human dignity and the sovereignty of nations. The lesson from this is clear: while it is vital that we uphold justice, we must be vigilant in ensuring that the systems we create to enforce it do not lead to unintended consequences, such as the destabilization of national sovereignty or the undermining of a nation's ability to defend itself against threats.

So, O children, let the lesson of Bolton’s words guide you: as you walk the path of leadership, whether in peace or in conflict, remember that justice is not just about retribution. It is about ensuring that the pursuit of peace and security remains at the heart of all actions. Never let the complexities of war cloud the pursuit of honor and truth, but also, be mindful of the systems you create to govern the actions of nations. Seek to build a world where accountability and sovereignty can coexist, where the rule of law prevails, but where nations retain the strength and autonomy to protect their people and their interests. In this way, may you create a world where justice is balanced with wisdom, and where peace remains the ultimate goal.