The UN has decided that no genocide took place in Darfur.

[Prozac the Robert]

It should be noted that although the UN doesn't claim genocide, they do want to be able to try people for crimes against humanity. It's also worth noting that the idea of an international criminal court is somehow horrific to americans.

[tharkûn]

Not wanting to get into a major debate about the merits of the ICC, I'll just list a few reasons why Americans don't like it. If you'd like a protacted debate upon its merits, please start another thread.

1. The US cannot be party to the ICC without a constitional amendment. To many Americans this is borderline heresy.
2. Other international tribunals have been sought to be used solely to undertake malicious political hack jobs at US policy makers.
3. Jurisdiction of the court is open ended.
4. The ICC may not respect trial by a jury of your peers.
5. The ICC may have judges from nondemocratic countries sitting upon it.
6. Past history has begotten a crapload of wariness.

It is beyond the ability of US policymakers to sell the ICC to the American populace. In a country that is vehemently anti-supranationalism it is extremely bad political form to support supranational entities have no direct apparent benifit for the US.

[Prozac the Robert]

I only brought it up to point out that just because they wont claim genocide "acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group", the UN still wants to take some sort of action.