|
Lack of Recognition for International Criminal
Court’s Authority to Prosecute Perpetrators of War Crimes, Crimes
Against Humanity, and Genocide a Glaring Omission from UN Reform
Document
September 27, 2005 -- Reflecting the Bush administration’s opposition to
the International Criminal Court (ICC), the
2005 United Nations (UN) World Summit Outcome Document lacks any
reference to the ICC. Moreover, the final Outcome Document undermines
support for efforts by the international community to hold accountable
those accused of gross human rights violations through international
tribunals and other mechanisms for international justice. The Outcome
Document, which sets the stage for UN reform and the direction of the
world organization, was agreed upon by more than 160 heads of state in
New York earlier this month.
Prior to President Bush’s recess appointment of John Bolton as U.S.
Ambassador to the United Nations, the United States’ acting Ambassador,
Anne Patterson, had agreed to a draft outcome document that explicitly
called for an end to impunity for those suspected of committing crimes
against humanity, war crimes, or genocide. These gross violations of
human rights constitute the only types of crimes over which the
International Criminal
Court, which is located in The Hague, has jurisdiction. The text of
the draft document read:
Impunity
112. Recognizing that justice is a vital component of the rule of
law, we commit to end impunity for the most serious crimes of
concern to the international community, such as crimes of genocide,
crimes against humanity and war crimes, by cooperating with the
International Criminal Court, the existing ad hoc and mixed criminal
tribunals and other mechanisms for international justice.
However, after Ambassador Bolton assumed office, he
presented a much-revised proposed outcome document, that, among other
things, deleted the language on ending impunity for rights violators. As
a result, UN member states were forced to take up the arduous task of
re-negotiating a final draft of the outcome document. As was widely
reported prior to the conclusion of the UN Summit, negotiations
continued until the 11th hour in New York and resulted in a much weaker
outcome document than had been agreed upon prior to Bolton’s arrival at
the UN.
According to the New York-based Coalition for the International Criminal
Court, “UN Member States…were forced by the US government into a
situation where they needed to withdraw all language on impunity out of
the final ‘UN reform summit’ document rather than concede to the use of
diluted and insufficient language on impunity. This was due to the fact
that just one country – the United States – opposed all negotiation
proposals, even a compromise proposal which referred to cooperation with
the ICC ‘in accordance with our respective international legal
obligations.’”
By pushing for deletion of the impunity clause, the United States not
only demonstrates its opposition to the authority of the International
Criminal Court but also:
-
Undermines strides taken by the international
community to hold those responsible for gross violations of human
rights;
-
Weakens the international community’s
collective recognition of the existence of an international judicial
body to investigate and prosecute these grave rights violations;
-
Contravenes the voice of the more than 140
countries worldwide that have either signed or ratified the Rome
Statute creating the ICC;
-
Subverts ongoing investigations and
prosecutions by international criminal tribunals -- such as the
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, the
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and the Special Court
for the Sierra Leone – all of which are investigating war crimes,
crimes against humanity, and/or genocide alleged to have occurred
before the ICC came into existence;
-
Detracts from the international community’s
commitment to the rule of law by bringing to justice through
alternative judicial mechanisms those accused of gross violations of
human rights that do not meet the high standards required for
consideration by the ICC; and
-
Sends the message to future Pol Pots, Idi Amins,
and Pinochets that the United States does not support international
accountability mechanisms.
Despite acting as a key player in the formulation
of the Rome Statute, the treaty that created the International Criminal
Court less than a decade ago, the United States has not ratified the
treaty to recognize the jurisdiction of the Court. In fact, under the
Bush administration, the U.S. has effectively rescinded its signature to
the Rome Statute. It also has subsequently worked to undermine the
authority of the Court by strong-arming ICC member states into signing
Bilateral Immunity Agreements (BIAs). Countries that have signed BIAs
with the United States agree not to surrender U.S. nationals, and
non-nationals who work or have worked for the U.S. government, to the
International Criminal Court if those individuals are found within the
country. (Click here to
learn which
countries have signed BIAs and
why legal
scholars say BIAs violate international law.) The U.S. refusal to
allow any reference to the International Criminal Court to be included
in this month’s historic UN reform document constitutes the latest in a
series of attacks on international law by the Bush administration.
Citizens for Global Solutions strongly condemns the U.S. failure to call
for end to impunity for perpetrators of grave human rights violations.
Updated September 27, 2005
|
Learn more
about the International Criminal Court
+Read More
|
