International Criminal Court
|
|
The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established in 2002 as a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, as defined by several international agreements, most prominently the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
Note that "International Criminal Court" is sometimes initialized as ICCt to distinguish it from "International Chamber of Commerce." Also, the ICC is separate from the International Court of Justice, which is a body to settle disputes between nations, and the War Crimes Law (Belgium), which some claim the American Servicemen's Protection Act passed by the U.S. (see below) was intended to thwart. In February 2005, it announced plans to issue its first arrest warrants, against leaders of the Lord's Resistance Army of Uganda and an unnamed militia leader in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. [1] (http://www.monuc.org/news.aspx?newsID=5480)
| Contents |
Development of the ICC
The development of the ICC followed the creation of several ad hoc tribunals to try war crimes in the former Yugolsavia and Rwanda (International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda). Subsequently, it was desired to create a permanent tribunal, so that an ad hoc tribunal would not have to be created after each occurrence of these crimes.
The General Assembly called the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, in Rome, Italy, where the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was adopted, July 17, 1998. Almost all states participating voted in favor of the Statute; the United States, Israel, People's Republic of China, Iraq, Qatar, Libya and Yemen voted against. The United States and Israel went on to sign the Statute just before the deadline to do so; neither seems likely to ratify it soon.
The Statute became a binding treaty after it received its 60th ratification, which was deposited at a ceremony at United Nations Headquarters on 11 April 2002. In fact, ten countries (Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ireland, Jordan, Mongolia, Niger, Romania and Slovakia) submitted their ratifications at this time, bringing the total to 66, so that no one nation would hold the honor of depositing the 60th ratification. The ICC legally came into existence on 1 July 2002. The official seat of the ICC is in The Hague, Netherlands; but its Statute permits it to hold its proceedings anywhere.
The court became operational when the signatory nations met in the Assembly of State Parties to appoint a prosecutor and 18 judges. It opened on March 11, 2003. The Judge-President is Philippe Kirsch from Canada, and the Vice-Presidents are Akua Kuenyenia from Ghana and Elizabeth Odio Benito from Costa Rica.
Structure and powers
The International Criminal Court is composed of the Court itself, divided into a number of chambers (Pre-Trial, Trial and Appellate), the Registry, the Office of the Prosecutor and the Assembly of State Parties.
The initial impetus for its establishment came from within the United Nations, and although it is legally a separate entity established by a separate treaty between states, and not the Security Council acting under the United Nations Charter, the UN has a clearly defined role towards the court. Its relationship with the United Nations is governed by an agreement between the Court and the United Nations, which mainly provides for Security Council referrals under the Rome Statute, and for United Nations assistance in payment for any prosecutions made under such a referral.
Countries ratifying the treaty that created the ICC grant it authority to try their citizens for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. It provides for ICC jurisdiction over offences committed on the territory of a state (including crimes committed on that territory by a national of a non-state party), by a national of a state, over crimes committed by any person when granted jurisdiction by the UN Security Council, and over crimes committed by nationals of a non-state party or on the territory of a non-state party where that non-state party has entered into an agreement with the court providing for it to have such jurisdiction in a particular case.
Many states wanted to add "aggression," "terrorism" and drug trafficking to the list of crimes covered by the Rome Statute; however other states opposed this, on the grounds that these crimes were difficult to define, and that dealing with less serious crimes such as terrorism and drug trafficking would distract from the seriousness of the crimes the ICC was established to deal with. As a compromise, the treaty merely brands "aggression" a crime without defining it all, pending adoption of an amendment to the Statute is defining it; it may also be amended to include other crimes. But no amendments can be made until seven years after the Statute's entry into force.
How cases reach the ICC
Cases may be referred to the ICC by one of four methods:
- A country member of the Assembly of States Parties sends the case;
- A country that has chosen to accept the ICC's jurisdiction sends the case;
- The Security Council sends the case (subject to veto from the permanent five members); or
- The three-judge panel authorizes a case initiated by the International Prosecutor.
Even though the Court has jurisdiction over the crime of international aggression, it will not exercise such jurisdiction until the crime has been further defined. The statute that established the ICC mandates that the state parties attempt to define aggression in 2009.
List of States parties
As of March 2005, the following 98 countries have ratified or acceded to the ICC Statute: [2] (http://untreaty.un.org/ENGLISH/bible/englishinternetbible/partI/chapterXVIII/treaty10.asp)
- In Europe: Albania, Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Georgia, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom
- In Africa: Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Central African Republic, Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia.
- In the Americas: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominica, Ecuador, Guyana, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela
- In Asia: Afghanistan, Cambodia, Jordan, Mongolia, South Korea, Tajikistan
- In Oceania: Australia, East Timor, Fiji, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand, Samoa
In addition to the above, there are 41 other states which have signed but not ratified the treaty.
Two states (the United States and Israel) initially signed the treaty, but later announced that they were withdrawing their signature. However, supporters and opponents of the treaty dispute as to whether it is legally possible for a state to withdraw its signature from a treaty. In the case of the United States, the treaty was signed by former President Clinton less than a month before leaving office, though he said that "I will not, and do not recommend that my successor submit the Treaty to the Senate for advice and consent until our fundamental concerns are satisfied." Treaties not ratified by the United States have no legal effect under its domestic law unless and until that ratification takes place.
The United Nations (the treaty depositary) continues to include their names in the official list of signatories, while including their official statements of withdrawal in footnotes without comment.
Opposition to the ICC
The creation and existence of the court has been somewhat controversial, with the largest disagreement surrounding the source and nature of the court's jurisdiction.
Some countries object to the court, saying that there is very little legal supervision of the court's apparatus, and that the court's verdicts may become subject to political motives. They argue that the court's mandate was already excessively wide (and would be even more so if the crime of aggression was defined in its Statue), meaning the court could (perhaps unwillingly) become a tool for barratry and pointless legal hassle. Although supporters say that the checks and balances in the ICC made this an unlikely possibility, opponents argue that giving even a temporary member of the Security Council the power to veto any objections of prosecutorial bias gave the ICC no accountability whatsoever.
Supporters would counter that the ICC's definitions are very similar to those of the Nuremberg trials. They also argue that the states which object to the ICC are those which regularly carry out genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity in order to protect or promote their political or economic interests.
One can also point out that as the sphere of human activity has expanded, so the scope of our governing institutions should expand also. In previous centuries, transportation and communication over distances was difficult, and so governing over distances was difficult. The nation-state was the sensible unit of government for this time. But now, corporations act internationally, governments act internationally in furtherance of their military and political goals (such as when the U.S. arrests the citizens of foreign countries from foreign countries for breaking U.S. laws, see Noriega), diseases spread internationally, terrorism occurs in complete disregard to national borders, and refugees spread across national borders from conflicts in such a way that no armed conflict can safely be ignored by the international community. The main institution that affects the lives of people and protects them, but does not do so internationally, is the law. If all the activities which are governed by laws occur on an international stage, the law must also act on an international stage.
U.S. objections
The United States, which signed but did not ratify the statute during the Bill Clinton administration, withdrew its support soon after George W. Bush assumed the presidency. It signed the ICC Statute at the last minute, primarily so that it could continue to take part in negotiations on the rules of procedure for the new court, in an attempt to obtain an exemption for U.S. nationals taking part in UN-sponsored peacekeeping missions—as several other countries were able to do. The U.S. fears that American soldiers and political leaders may be subject to "frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions."
On May 6, 2002, the United States informed the United Nations Secretary-General that "the United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty. Accordingly, the United States has no legal obligations arising from its signature on 31 December 2000." This was widely described as "unsigning" the treaty or "withdrawing" the United States' signature, although the United States in its letter did not use that terminology, and the United Nations has not removed the name of the United States from the official list of signatories. It is important to note that signing a treaty and ratifying a treaty are not the same thing. In August 2002, the U.S. passed the American Servicemembers' Protection Act, promising military action to prevent the trial of any U.S. troops or nationals by the court.
Many in the U.S. believe that, since the U.S. is the world's sole remaining superpower and might makes right, the United States is more qualified to move against war criminals in a unilateral fashion. They cite the following examples to support their case:
- The Nuremberg trials were convened under pressure from the United States and one of the four chief prosecutors of the first trial was Robert H. Jackson, a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
- The U.S.-led military actions in Iraq in 2003 have led to the killing, capture, or removal from power of Iraqi war criminals like Ali Hassan al-Majid and Saddam Hussein.
U.S. opponents of the ICC maintain that in cases where the U.S. failed to act quickly enough to prevent disaster (e.g. Rwanda), the U.S. has been criticized for allowing genocide to occur; in cases where the U.S. has acted quickly (e.g. Yugoslavia, Somalia) they have been criticized and even accused of war crimes.
Furthermore, opponents contend that neither the ICC nor the United Nations has any real power to enforce the extradition of war criminals from signatory states. Therefore, any kind of military action to force compliance would have to be undertaken (in large part) by the U.S., action which would expose U.S. officials to spurious charges of war crimes.
Israeli and Chinese objections
Israel initially objected to the Rome Statute because of the clause defining "the war crime of the transfer of parts of the civilian population of an occupying power into occupied territory", which it feared implied that settlement activity in the occupied territories is a "war crime" and "grave offense." [3] (http://www.cicweb.ca/publications/ForTheRecord/un.html) Israel fears prosecution of Israeli settlers, or Israeli government officials who support the policy of settlements, as "war crimes". It did eventually sign the treaty establishing the court despite its misgivings, but on 28 August 2002 submitted a letter to the United Nations declaring that it did not intend to ratify the treaty, using the same wording as the US declaration of 6 May 2002.[4] (http://untreaty.un.org/ENGLISH/bible/englishinternetbible/partI/chapterXVIII/treaty10.asp)
The People's Republic of China has expressed opposition to even the other states involved going ahead with it, claiming that the Statute is an attempt to interfere with the domestic affairs of sovereign states. It has not signed the treaty.
Other objections to the Statute
The United States' objection is that the Statute provides the court with jurisdiction over nationals of non-State parties for crimes committed on the territory of a State Party. The United States claims this amounts to the treaty binding non-State parties, and under international law only parties to a treaty can be bound by it. Supporters of the Court counter that under international law that states have the right to try foreign nationals for crimes committed on their territory; and if a state has the right to exercise jurisdiction in this case, that state can request an international organization to exercise that jurisdiction on its behalf by means of the treaty establishing that organization - traditionally in international law, international organizations are considered to be instruments through which their member states act. Providing the ICC with jurisdiction over U.S. nationals in this case would not interfere with U.S. sovereignty, say ICC proponents. Some have, however, argued that their territorial jurisdiction is non-delegable [see Madeline Morris, High crimes and misconceptions: the ICC and non-party states, Law and Contemporary Problems, Winter 2001 vol. 64 no. 1 p. 13ff]. [5] (http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/lcp/articles/lcp64dWinter2001p13.htm)
Additionally, some have argued that the crimes the ICC has jurisdiction over are recognized under international law as crimes of universal jurisdiction, meaning that any state may try individuals who commit these crimes, even if they are committed by foreign nationals on foreign territory. From this perspective, the State parties could therefore have authorized the ICC to exercise this universal jurisdiction on their behalf. However, the concept of universal jurisdiction itself is controversial, not all the crimes for which the Rome Statute provides the court with jurisdiction have been proposed as being subject to universal jurisdiction at the present time under customary international law, and some have argued that even where universal jurisdiction exists it is non-delegable ibid (http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/lcp/articles/lcp64dWinter2001p13.htm).
U.S. measures against the ICC
When it became clear in 2002 that the treaty creating the ICC would receive the requisite number of ratifications to enter into force, the United States began to undertake a number of measures to exempt U.S. nationals from the Court's jurisdiction. Several supporters of the Court have described this as an attempt to "strangle it at birth".
The U.S. has attempted to pressure other states into signing bilateral agreements with it (see below) by holding it as a condition of receiving military aid. In 2003 the U.S. stopped military aid for 35 countries (among them nine European countries). U.S. law requires the cessation of such aid payments if a state is unwilling to sign the bilateral agreement (there are exceptions for NATO-members and allies such as Israel, Egypt, Australia and South Korea).
American Servicemembers Protection Act
In 2002, the U.S. Congress passed the American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA), which contained a number of provisions, including prohibitions on the U.S. providing military aid to countries which had ratified the treaty establishing the court; however, there were a number of exceptions to this, including NATO members, "major non-NATO allies" (such as Australia, Israel, the Republic of China (Taiwan) and a number of other countries), countries which entered into an agreement with the United States not to hand over U.S. nationals to the Court (see "Article 98" agreements below). ASPA also excluded any military aid that the U.S. President certified to be in the U.S. national interest.
In addition, ASPA contained provisions prohibiting U.S. co-operation with the Court, and permitting the President to authorize military force to free any U.S. military personnel held by the court, leading opponents to dub it "The Hague Invasion Act." The act was later modified to permit U.S. cooperation with the ICC when dealing with U.S. enemies.
United Nations Security Council Resolutions
In July 2002, the United States threatened to use its Security Council veto to block renewal of the mandates of several United Nations peacekeeping operations, unless the Security Council agreed to permanently exempt U.S. nationals from the Court's jurisdiction.
Initially, the U.S. had sought to prevent personnel on UN missions being tried by any country except that of their nationality. When the other members of the Security Council rejected that approach, the United States then sought to make use of a provision of the Rome Statute, which permits the Security Council to request the ICC not to exercise its jurisdiction over a certain matter for up to one year at a time. The United States sought the Security Council to convey such a request to the ICC concerning personnel on United Nations peacekeeping and enforcement operations, and to have that request renewed automatically each year. (If it was renewed automatically each year, then another Security Council resolution would be required to cease the request, which the U.S. could then veto—which would effectively make the request permanent.) Court supporters argued that the Rome Statute requires the request to be valid to be voted upon anew each year in the Security Council, and hence that an automatically renewing request would violate the Statute.
Other members of the Security Council opposed this United States request also. However, they were increasingly concerned about the future of peacekeeping operations. The United Kingdom eventually negotiated a compromise, whereby the U.S. would be granted its request, but only for a period of one year, and a new Security Council vote would be required in July each year for the exclusion of peacekeepers from ICC jurisdiction to be continued. All members of the Security Council endorsed this resolution, although many did so reluctantly. The result was UN Security Council Resolution 1422.
NGO supporters of the Court, along with several countries not on the Security Council (including Canada and New Zealand), protested the legality of the resolution. The resolution was made under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which requires a "threat to international peace or security" for the Security Council to act; ICC supporters have argued that a U.S. threat to veto peacekeeping operations does not constitute a threat to international peace or security.
A resolution to exempt citizens of the U.S. from jurisdiction of the court was renewed in 2003 by Resolution 1487, but when after the abuse of prisoners in Iraq it became clear that there was no majority for it, the U.S. withdrew its second proposed renewal of the resolution.
"Article 98" agreements
Article 98 of the Rome Statute provides that a country need not hand over a foreign national to the Court if it is prohibited from doing so by an agreement with that national's country. The U.S. has attempted to use this measure to exempt its nationals from the Court's jurisdiction, by negotiating agreements with State Parties making use of Article 98.
Amnesty International and the European Commission Legal Service, along with several other groups supporting the ICC, have claimed that these agreements the U.S. is attempting to negotiate are not valid under Article 98. They argue that the language in Article 98 is normally used in international law to refer to Status of Forces Agreements (SOFA), mission agreements and extradition treaties; hence they claim that Article 98 can only be used for these purposes, and not to create a general exclusion of another states nationals from being handed over to the ICC.
Romania and Israel (even though the latter is not a party to the Statute) were the first to sign Article 98 agreements with the U.S. In response to Romania's action, the European Union requested that candidate countries not sign Article 98 agreements with the United States until the EU ministers had met to agree upon a common position. The U.S. State Department called this action "inappropriate". ICC supporters countered that the United States was attempting to use issues of military aid and NATO membership to bully other countries into signing.
Finally, in October 2002, the Council of the European Union adopted a common position, permitting member states to enter into Article 98 agreements with the United States, but only concerning U.S. military personnel, U.S. diplomatic or consular officials, and persons extradited, sent to their territories by the United States with their permission; not the general protection of U.S. nationals that the U.S. sought; furthermore the common position provided that any person protected from ICC prosecution by such agreements would have to be prosecuted by the United States.
On December 26, 2002, India became the 15th country to sign a bilateral agreement with the U.S. under Article 98. The agreement aims to prevent the "extradition of nationals of either country to any international tribunal without the other country's express consent". In total around 100 states had signed a bilateral agreement with the U.S. by June 2005, at least seven of them signed the agreement secretly.
See also
External links
UN
- Official ICC website (http://www.icc-cpi.int/)
- UN website on the Statute of the International Criminal Court (http://www.un.org/law/icc/)
- Text of the ICC Rome statute (treaty) (http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/romefra.htm)
- Article 5: Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court (http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/99_corr/2.htm)
- Article 98: Cooperation with respect to waiver of immunity and consent to surrender (http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/99_corr/9.htm)
Other
- The Coalition for the International Criminal Court (http://www.iccnow.org)
- No Peace Without Justice — Member of the Steering Committee (http://www.npwj.org)
- Objections to the ICC under the U.S. Constitution and International Law (http://www.globalpolitician.com/articles.asp?ID=84)
- The Pitfalls of Universal Jurisdiction: Risking Judicial Tyranny (http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/general/2001/07kiss.htm) by Henry Kissinger
- A reply to Henry Kissinger's paper (http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/icc/ferencz4.html) by Benjamin B. Ferencz, a former Prosecutor at the Subsequent Nuremberg Trials.
- Why Bilateral Agreements with the U.S. are not valid under Art.98 of ICC Statute (http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/icc/ciccart98.html) by Derechos.org
- "International court hears anti-war claims" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1477620,00.html), Richard Norton-Taylor, The Guardian, 6 May 2005,da:Den internationale straffedomstol
de:Internationaler Strafgerichtshof es:Corte Penal Internacional fr:Cour pénale internationale it:Corte Penale Internazionale nl:Hof (internationaal recht) ja:国際刑事裁判所 no:Den internasjonale straffedomstolen pl:Międzynarodowy Trybunał Karny pt:Corte penal internacional ro:Curtea Penală Internaţională fi:Kansainvälinen sotarikostuomioistuin sv:Internationella brottmålsdomstolen