Critically examine the assertion that the International Criminal Court cannot survive the United States' antagonisms.
[...] On top of that, the United States alleges that the ICC as it is today does not respect the American constitution and particularly the guarantees it offers its nationals in terms of prosecution and trial. The United States is clearly opposed to the concepts of universal jurisdiction and of jurisdiction over nationals of non party States. Moreover, it disagrees with the concept of a proprio motu prosecutor. Indeed, the United States thinks the powers given to the prosecutor endangers its State sovereignty. And, the United States is also concerned with the fact that the ICC was designed so as to be independent from the Security Council. It appears that the U.S. [...]
[...] This is counter-productive and damages the United States reputation and foreign policy. Conclusion As the U.S. is the main funder for international operations and tribunals, the last superpower, and generally main supplier of funds and peacekeepers, one could expect its participation in the ICC to be fundamental and necessary to the court's survival. Doubts regarding the ICC efficiency and survival are even more important when considering the aggressive measures the United States adopted to undermine the court' efficiency and show its protest to the Treaty which it judges as being flawed. [...]
[...] The United States' Congress therefore pressures the States which need U.S. military help so that they sign a BIA, ensuring immunity to U.S. nationals. Through the adoption of these three main aggressive measures, aimed at undermining the scope of the ICC's jurisdiction and protecting U.S. nationals from possible prosecution by the court, the United States clearly attemps to prevent the ICC from exercising its functions. But in spite of all that, several factors indicate that the ICC is not on the verge of disappearing Factors supporting the survival of the ICC Three main factors support the idea that the ICC can survive the U.S.' antagonisms. [...]
[...] But this would have dampened the enthusiasm of other states. Moreover, the ICC has started working, and to be able to that it did not have to wait for the U.S. ratification of the treaty. Indeed, the ICC is currently investigating four cases among which one was referred to the ICC by the Security Council. So, by not opposing its veto, the United States clearly shows that it's not opposed to the ideals that the ICC pursues. Finally, Europe seeks to counterbalance the effect of BIAs through guidelines. [...]
[...] Nevertheless, no guarantee exists that the United States will conduct an investigation into the occurrence once the suspect is turned over to the United States.” These agreements are meant to be considered as international agremments as refered to in Article 98 of the Rome Statute, according to the United States. This article provides that a State may not respect its obligations under the Statute in case it is engaged in another international agreement (such as a SOFA). The debate about Article 98 is to know whether these BIAs can really be regarded as international agreements as the drafters intended it, particularly because they target persons in general. [...]
avec notre liseuse dédiée !