|
Birth of World Criminal Court Amid U.S., Israeli Opposition
 |
| U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Negroponte, third from right, vetoes extension of Bosnia peacekeeping operations.
|
THE
HAGUE, July 1 (IslamOnline & News Agencies) – Despite fresh U.S.
and Israeli opposition to what others lauded as the missing link in
international justice to end impunity for the worst crimes against
mankind, the U.N. permanent war crimes tribunal officially opened its
doors in The Hague Monday, July 1, 2002.
An
advance team will report to work at a temporary office of the
International Criminal Court (ICC) on the outskirts of Dutch capital
to receive the first complaints, Agence France-Presse (AFP) reported.
The
court is mandated to prosecute genocide, war crimes, crimes against
humanity, and crimes of aggression committed anywhere in the world.
However,
the controversy with Washington re-surfaced on the eve of the court's
launch as the United States vetoed Sunday, June 30, a renewal of the
U.N. police force in Bosnia after the Security Council refused to
exempt peacekeepers from ICC prosecution.
The
veto - the 75th by the United States in the 57-year history of the
United Nations - was cast seven hours before the court came into
being.
U.N.
Secretary General Kofi Annan and the organization's legal counsel,
Hans Corell, were in the council chamber to witness the vote, marking
the gravity of the occasion.
Now,
the United Nations has less than three days to secure the future of
its peacekeeping operation in Bosnia after the U.S. used its power of
veto to block renewal of the force.
The
U.S. insists that American soldiers be guaranteed immunity from
prosecution by a new international war crimes court, BBC’s online
news service reported Monday.
The
Security Council later agreed to extend the mission's mandate for 72
hours to give diplomats time to try to resolve the issue.
According
to BBC, there is little sign that more talking will change anything
except to buy more time for arranging a Bosnian pullout.
However,
after using its veto, the U.S. did continue negotiations, which could
indicate a willingness to break the deadlock.
Western
diplomats, for their part, warned that Washington is isolated in its
position. All 15 European Union countries and 56 other states have
ratified the treaty creating the ICC.
In
London, meanwhile, Britain appealed Monday to the U.S. administration
to sign up to the new permanent U.N. war crimes court, but called for
understanding over Washington's refusal to ratify the tribunal so far,
AFP reported.
British
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw urged leaders to look at the
"totality" of U.S. peacekeeping commitments throughout the
world, notably Afghanistan and the Balkans.
"We
do not share their view about this, but we understand their
concerns," Straw told BBC radio.
"The
United States has a more extensive peacekeeping role across the world
than any other country," he added. "The record of the U.S.
is a good one."
On
Sunday, Israel also reaffirmed its refusal to take part in the ICC,
military radio said.
There
has been speculation that the controversy prompted the low-key
approach the Dutch government has taken over the court's first day in
existence, which was marked by no official celebrations or ceremonies.
Much
remains to be done before the court can function properly. At the
moment, there are no judges, no prosecutors, no courtrooms and no
registrar. The new court does not even have a budget yet.
In
September, the states that ratified the Rome treaty will meet in New
York to agree on a budget and establish the procedures for electing
and appointing court officials and employees.
The
states will come together again in January 2003 to elect the chief
prosecutor and 18 judges. The court is expected to be fully
operational by the end of 2003.
Although
some observers expect complaints to be in piles in the first weeks of
the ICC's existence, the court is not retroactive and can only try
crimes committed after July 1st.
To
put together a claim that could lead to an investigation could take
some time. Only when national courts are unable or unwilling to
properly deal with war crimes can the ICC step in to take over.
In
theory, the court's jurisdiction is universal, but it can only
prosecute if the state where the crimes were committed or the state of
the nationality of the accused are party to the statute.
|
