I often see discussion about ICC (International Criminal Court) and the United States, and loads of misinformation in form of wishful thinking that the United States one day will be prosecuted at Hague for its crimes against humanity. While wishful thinking is allowed for purpose of alleviating frustration, it serves no other purpose. The ICC has no jurisdiction over the United States. US is neither signatory, nor has ratified the ICC treaties since ICC inception in 2002 by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute) for purpose of bringing to justice the perpetrators of the worst crimes known to humankind – war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. United States position in ICC is very clear. The Clinton Administration signed the Rome Statute in 2000, but stated that he would not submit it to the Senate for advice and consent for ratification until the U.S. government had a chance to assess the functioning of the court. In the US there are clear cut contingencies about ratification of treaties. A treaty becomes binding only when the treaty has been ratified. Furthermore, in the US, the constitution gives the President power to negotiate treaties under Article II of the US constitution. The President must then submit a treaty to the Senate for advice and consent for ratification. The Senate must approve the treaty by a two-thirds majority before it can take effect. The Senate may submit amendments, reservations, or explanations to the President regarding the treaty. Once ratified, treaties are generally self-executing—at least from the perspective of other nations—as the ratifying state fully binds itself to the treaty as a matter of the public international law and of national honor and good faith. So assertion of not being a signatory to the ICC only means you withhold your support for it, it does not guarantee one immunity is an inaccurate statement at best if not misinformation. Moving to the Bush Administration, which was the US administration at the time of the ICCs founding, stated that it would not join the ICC. President George W. Bushs Administration sent a note to the UN Secretary General on May 6, 2002. The note purports to suspend the USs signature and informed the Secretary General that the US recognized no obligation toward the Rome Statute. In addition, the US stated that its intention not to become a state party should be reflected in the UN depositorys list. This is because signatories have an obligation not to undermine the object and purpose of a treaty according to Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, also sometimes referred to as the good faith obligations. According to one authority the US could engage with the Court by reactivating its signature to the Rome Statute by submitting a letter to the UN Secretary General. Position of the Bush administration knowing the atrocity it has committed was to unalterably oppose US ratification of the Rome Statute, believing Americans would be unfairly treated for political reasons! Moreover, the Bush Administration actively pursued a policy of hostility towards the court in its international relations. The Bush administrations policies toward the ICC exceeded merely staying out of the Statute, and actively began seeking to guarantee that US citizens be immune to the Court and to thwart other states from acceding to the Stature without taking US concerns into account. The US vigorously pressed states to conclude agreements with the US that would guarantee its citizens immunity from the Courts jurisdiction, threatening to cut off aid to states that refused to agree. The Obama Administration did state its intent to cooperate with the International Criminal Court and for a first time in 2009 the U.S. delegation were sent to the ICCs annual meeting of the Assembly of States Parties in The Hague as an observer. However like everything else in the Obama administration that was for the purpose of show and tell, to this day the Obama Administration has made no formal policy decision on the ICC or the status of the BIAs. Ironically but not surprisingly the Conference adopted a definition for the crime of aggression, the conditions under which it would exercise jurisdiction, and a road-map for the eventual activation of jurisdiction after January 1, 2017. The US of course raised concerns about the definition of the crime of aggression, then of course an amendment was adopted under which ICC will be, first, unable to prosecute individuals of a non-state party and second, state- parties will have the opportunity to opt-out of aggression jurisdiction if they so wish Halleluiah. So ICC has no jurisdiction on US, and even after Jan., 2017, a date for road-map of EVENTUAL jurisdiction and per adopted amendment the US still can NOT be prosecuted. On the side note, I must remind everyone that Barack Obama is a constitutional attorney, through and through shyster politician who sees a decade a head of him, and secured himself to the tilt.
Posted on: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 18:00:32 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015