The United States does not intend to join the International Criminal Court, which was established in 2002 as a permanent tribunal to investigate and prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Although the then U.S. President, Bill Clinton, signed the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in 2000, he stated he would not submit it to the Senate for ratification, and only signed so that the United States could participate in negotiations on the court's rules of procedure.
In 2002, the U.S. Congress passed the American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA), which contained a number of provisions, including prohibitions on the United States 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, and 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,[5] 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.
In addition, the Nethercutt Amendment to the Foreign Appropriations Bill suspends Economic Support Fund assistance to ICC States Parties who have not signed bilateral immunity agreements (BIAs) with the United States. The funds affected support initiatives including peacekeeping, anti-terrorism measures, democracy-building and drug interdiction. The omnibus appropriations bill containing the controversial amendment was signed by President Bush on December 7, 2004.
As part of the U.S. campaign to exclude its citizens and military personnel from extradition by the ICC, the U.S. Bush administration has been approaching countries around the world seeking to conclude Bilateral Immunity Agreements, or “Article 98” agreements (a comprehensive compilation of NGO, government and inter-governmental documents related to US-proposed bilateral agreements seeking to ensure the non-surrender of US personnel — including both US nationals and foreign contractors working for the United States — to the International Criminal Court.).
A resolution to exempt citizens of the United States from jurisdiction of the ICC was renewed in 2003 by Resolution 1487, but after the abuse of prisoners in Iraq, the United States withdrew its second proposed renewal of the resolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court
Opposition - Why?
The opposition of the United States to the International Criminal Court appears as either a puzzle or an embarrassment to many of the nation's traditional supporters. A puzzle, because it is not at all obvious why the United States should feel so threatened by this new court. Supporters of the Court point out that there are ample provisions in the Rome Statute designed to protect a mature democracy's capacity to engage in legal self-regulation and self-policing.
An embarrassment, because the United States appears to be exempting itself from rules of the game that it believes should apply to others. This is singularly inappropriate when the game involves allegations of crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes. For the United States to take this position is particularly embarrassing, since it, more than any other modern nation-state, has held itself out as committed to and constituted by the rule of law.
The US administration has campaigned long and hard against the ICC. With soldiers deployed in more than 140 countries, the Bush administration has made it absolutely clear that it will do everything in its power to undermine the work of the court. Leading Republican politicians have condemned the institution’s very existence as “a violation of US sovereignty”.
Opposition to the creation of the new court was initially spearheaded by a collection of former US officials whose actions while in office would have made them candidates for war crimes prosecution. Former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, former CIA director Richard Helms and former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski were among the signatories of a November 2000 open letter warning that the US must put “our nation’s military personnel safely beyond the reach of an unaccountable international prosecutor operating under procedures inconsistent with our Constitution.”
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/mar2003/icc-m17.shtml
What is the point of an international criminal court without global jurisdiction?
In 2002, the U.S. Congress passed the American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA), which contained a number of provisions, including prohibitions on the United States 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, and 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,[5] 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.
In addition, the Nethercutt Amendment to the Foreign Appropriations Bill suspends Economic Support Fund assistance to ICC States Parties who have not signed bilateral immunity agreements (BIAs) with the United States. The funds affected support initiatives including peacekeeping, anti-terrorism measures, democracy-building and drug interdiction. The omnibus appropriations bill containing the controversial amendment was signed by President Bush on December 7, 2004.
As part of the U.S. campaign to exclude its citizens and military personnel from extradition by the ICC, the U.S. Bush administration has been approaching countries around the world seeking to conclude Bilateral Immunity Agreements, or “Article 98” agreements (a comprehensive compilation of NGO, government and inter-governmental documents related to US-proposed bilateral agreements seeking to ensure the non-surrender of US personnel — including both US nationals and foreign contractors working for the United States — to the International Criminal Court.).
A resolution to exempt citizens of the United States from jurisdiction of the ICC was renewed in 2003 by Resolution 1487, but after the abuse of prisoners in Iraq, the United States withdrew its second proposed renewal of the resolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court
Opposition - Why?
The opposition of the United States to the International Criminal Court appears as either a puzzle or an embarrassment to many of the nation's traditional supporters. A puzzle, because it is not at all obvious why the United States should feel so threatened by this new court. Supporters of the Court point out that there are ample provisions in the Rome Statute designed to protect a mature democracy's capacity to engage in legal self-regulation and self-policing.
An embarrassment, because the United States appears to be exempting itself from rules of the game that it believes should apply to others. This is singularly inappropriate when the game involves allegations of crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes. For the United States to take this position is particularly embarrassing, since it, more than any other modern nation-state, has held itself out as committed to and constituted by the rule of law.
The US administration has campaigned long and hard against the ICC. With soldiers deployed in more than 140 countries, the Bush administration has made it absolutely clear that it will do everything in its power to undermine the work of the court. Leading Republican politicians have condemned the institution’s very existence as “a violation of US sovereignty”.
Opposition to the creation of the new court was initially spearheaded by a collection of former US officials whose actions while in office would have made them candidates for war crimes prosecution. Former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, former CIA director Richard Helms and former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski were among the signatories of a November 2000 open letter warning that the US must put “our nation’s military personnel safely beyond the reach of an unaccountable international prosecutor operating under procedures inconsistent with our Constitution.”
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/mar2003/icc-m17.shtml
What is the point of an international criminal court without global jurisdiction?