|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. Opposed To Upcoming International Criminal Court
|
|
Arab demonstrators have recently called for Sharon to be tried as a war criminal |
WASHINGTON, April 9 (IslamOnline & News Agencies) - The United States expects to keep up its opposition to the creation of an International Criminal Court (ICC), fearing the specter of a supranational institution of justice hostile to U.S. interests, news agencies reported.
The United Nations has scheduled a ceremony on April 11 for the four outstanding treaty ratifications needed to make the permanent international war crimes court a reality.
Far from ratifying the ICC in Congress, the United States might withdraw its signature from the Rome Statute setting up the ICC, U.S. diplomatic sources in New York said. "It's already decided that we oppose this treaty," the official continued. "This treaty will not be sent to the Senate for ratification. So the policy review is just reviewing how we are going to oppose the treaty. "All options are under consideration. That's in the final stages," the official added.
According to the sources, Washington might set up a permanent watch over the ICC to ensure that not a cent of the U.N.'s budget goes toward the court - only funds from U.N. member states that support it.
The U.S. stance pits the United States against numerous other Western countries, especially in Europe. "The U.S. opposition to the ICC is in stark contrast to the strong support for the court by most of America's closest allies," a report from New York-based Human Rights Watch notes.
In fact, the United States is a long-term opponent of the ICC, which is to function as a permanent system of justice beyond national boundaries. That would make the United States vulnerable, notably in the case of judgment of its troops engaged in foreign operations, reported AFP.
Former U.S. president Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statute in December 2000, weeks before he left the White House, in order to ensure the United States would be present to negotiate amendments. Clinton, however, had already warned his successor against getting involved in a Senate ratification process.
And the Bush administration has made no bones about its own aversion to the ICC.
U.S. ambassador at large for war crimes issues Pierre-Richard Prosper last February sharply criticized the court before the U.S. Congress. "We are steadfast in our belief that the United States cannot support a court that lacks the essential safeguards to avoid a politicization of justice," Prosper said. The September 11 deadly attacks against the United States had done nothing to change that view, he said.
Generally speaking, Washington thinks it would be better to support state judicial systems to judge war crimes, helping them if necessary to ensure justice is done.
If that is not possible, having tribunals like the U.N. International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), or the U.N. International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) is an option, as long as their mandate is limited.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) will come into being on July 1, two complete calendar months after the 60th country ratifies the 1998 Rome Statute. Dutch authorities are scrambling to find a temporary home for the new international war crimes court with construction on its main headquarters expected to take at least another five years, reported AFP.
In the meantime, the court will be temporarily housed in a building currently occupied by the Dutch Directorate-General for Public Works and Water Management across the street from the ad hoc UN tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
William Pace, convenor of the Coalition for an International Criminal Court (CICC) believes it will take at least a year before the court can properly respond to referrals. "There needs to be a mechanism to protect evidence of crimes if they are provided to the court," he said.
Unlike the International Court of Justice, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, which was designed to deal primarily with disputes between States and has no jurisdiction over matters involving individual criminal responsibility the ICC will be an independent judiciary body capable of trying individuals and poised to end an era of impunity.
In the past 50 years alone, more than 250 conflicts have erupted around the world; more than 86 million civilians, mostly women and children died in these conflicts; and over 170 million people were stripped of their rights, property and dignity, reported the ICC on its site.
The United Nations General Assembly first recognized the need for a permanent mechanism to prosecute mass murderers and war criminals in 1948,following the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials after World War II.
Since that time, numerous laws, treaties, conventions and protocols have defined and forbade everything from war crimes to poison gas and chemical weapons, yet no system was proposed to enforce these norms by holding individuals criminally responsible.
It was not until the adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court that a permanent, international mechanism capable of prosecuting the most nefarious violators of international humanitarian law was created.
The Court will deal with the most serious crimes committed by individuals: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and aggression. The first three crimes are carefully defined in the Statute to avoid ambiguity or vagueness. The crime of aggression will be dealt with by the Court when the Assembly of States Parties has agreed on the definition, elements and conditions under which the Court will exercise jurisdiction; this cannot happen until a review conference has been held, seven years after entry into force of the treaty. It is important to note that the Rome Statute does not identify any new categories of crime, but rather reflects existing conventional and customary international law.
Genocide covers those specifically listed prohibited acts (e.g. killing, causing serious harm) committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.
Crimes against humanity cover those specifically listed prohibited acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population. Such acts include murder, extermination, rape, sexual slavery, the enforced disappearance of persons and the crime of apartheid, among others.
Genocide and crimes against humanity are punishable irrespective of whether they are committed in time of “peace” or of war.
War crimes cover grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and other serious violations of the laws of war, committed on a large scale in international as well as internal armed conflicts.
The inclusion of internal conflicts is consistent with customary international law and reflects the reality that in the past 50 years, the most serious violations of human rights have occurred, not in international conflicts, but within States.
The definitions of the crimes in the Statute are the product of years of hard work involving many delegations and their experts. The judges of the Court are required to strictly construe the definitions and are not to extend them by analogy. The aim is to establish objective international standards, leaving no room for arbitrary decisions. In cases of ambiguity, the definitions are to be interpreted in favor of the suspect or accused.
The work of the Security Council and the International Criminal Court will complement each other. The Rome Statute recognizes the role of the Security Council in the maintenance of international peace and security. Specifically, the treaty notes that under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the Security Council may refer a "situation" to the Court when one or more of the crimes covered by the Statute appears to have been committed. This would provide a basis for the Prosecutor to initiate an investigation.
Since the referral of a situation by the Security Council is based on its competence under Chapter VII, which is binding and legally enforceable in all States, the exercise of the Court's jurisdiction becomes part of the enforcement measures. Its jurisdiction becomes binding even when neither the State in whose territory crimes have been committed nor the State of nationality of the accused is a party to the Statute.
|
|
|
|
