In February, after hearing the testimony at the Chilcot Inquiry, I reported on the Coalition for International Criminal Court, something I’d never ever heard of [Iraq and the UN Security Council: the ICC?]. Here’s a piece of what I wrote then:
|
… there’s a second World Court [International Criminal Court] brought to my attention in the Chilcot Inquiry by the testimony of Ms. Elizabeth Wilmshurst:
The International Criminal Court [commonly referred to as the ICC or ICCt] is a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression [although it cannot currently exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression]…
The establishment of an international tribunal to judge political leaders accused of war crimes was first made during the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 by the Commission of Responsibilities. The issue was addressed again at conference held in Geneva under the auspices of the League of Nations on November 1-16, 1937, but no practical results followed. In 1948, following the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals, the United Nations General Assembly recognized the need for a permanent international court to deal with atrocities of the kind committed during World War II. At the request of the General Assembly, the International Law Commission drafted two statutes by the early 1950s but these were shelved as the Cold War made the establishment of an international criminal court politically unrealistic. Benjamin B. Ferencz, an investigator of Nazi war crimes after World War II and the Chief Prosecutor for the United States Army at the Einsatzgruppen Trial, one of the twelve military trials held by the U.S. authorities at Nuremberg, later became a vocal advocate of the establishment of an international rule of law and of an International Criminal Court. In his first book published in 1975, entitled Defining International Aggression-The Search for World Peace, he argued for the establishment of such an international court. The idea was revived in 1989 when A. N. R. Robinson, then Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, proposed the creation of a permanent international court to deal with the illegal drug trade. While work began on a draft statute, the international community established ad hoc tribunals to try war crimes in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, further highlighting the need for a permanent international criminal court. Following years of negotiations, the General Assembly convened a conference in Rome in June 1998, with the aim of finalising a treaty. On 17 July 1998, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was adopted by a vote of 120 to 7, with 21 countries abstaining. The seven countries that voted against the treaty were China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar, the United States, and Yemen. The Rome Statute became a binding treaty on 11 April 2002, when the number of countries that had ratified it reached 60. The Statute legally came into force on 1 July 2002, and the ICC can only prosecute crimes committed after that date. The first bench of 18 judges was elected by an Assembly of States Parties in February 2003. They were sworn in at the inaugural session of the court on 1 March 2003. The court issued its first arrest warrants on 8 July 2005, and the first pre-trial hearings were held in 2006.
The ICC is a huge topic, worthy of investigating thoroughly. This court is an attempt to resolve the questions raised by the nebulousness of international law and the absence of any real court of final resort, particularly with things like genocide and war. As you can see it was opposed by those traditional allies – China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar, the United States, and Yemen. And so here’s the current layout:
 Ratified, Signed but not Ratified, Not signed What’s wrong with this picture? What’s with the US? Well, that’s a very long story. As of December 31, 2000, this was it:
Although the then U.S. President, Bill Clinton, signed the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in 2000, he stated that although he would not submit it to the Senate for advice and consent for ratification until the U.S. government had a chance to assess the functioning of the court, he nonetheless supported the proposed role of the ICC and its aims:
but then…
After the Rome Statute reached the requisite 60 ratifications in 2002, President George W. Bush’s Administration sent a note to the UN Secretary General on May 6, 2002. The note suspended the signature of the US and informed the Secretary General that the US recognized no obligation toward the Rome Statute. In addition, the US stated that its intention not to be become a member state be reflected in the UN depositry’s list. This is because signatories have an obligation not to undermine the object and purpose of a treaty. The US could engage with the Court by reactivating its signature to the Rome Statute by a letter to the UN Secretary General. A treaty that is not ratified is not legally binding.
|
President Bush and friends withdrew from the International Criminal Court altogether in May 2002 – imagine that. I guess if you are about to invade a sovereign country unprovoked without the approval of the UN Security Council and you’re operating a Torture Program, suspending the Geneva Conventions, signing on to a Court that’s about to debate the criteria for the Crime of Aggression sounds pretty dangerous.
While the Obama Administration has not embraces the ICC, they have returned to the careful but supportive position of the Clinton Administration.
|
Most recently, the Obama Administration has stated its intent to cooperate with the International Criminal Court. On November 16th, Ambassador-at-large for war crimes issues Stephen Rapp announced that he would lead the U.S. delegation to the ICC’s annual meeting of the Assembly of States Parties in The Hague. He told journalists "Our government has now made the decision that Americans will return to engagement at the ICC." The U.S. will participate as an observer. In response to a question from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton remarked that the US will end its “hostility” towards the Court. In addition, Susan Rice, US Ambassador to the United Nations, in her first address to the Security Council, expressed US support for the Court’s investigation in Sudan. These statements coupled with the removal of sanctions to the Bilateral Immunity agreements (BIAs) signals a positive shift in the US cooperation with the Court and may lead to greater participation with it…
|
[…] worries that U.S. citizens might be prosecuted for our intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina. But then: After the Rome Statute reached the requisite 60 ratifications in 2002, President George W. […]