Tuesday May 7, 1:18 AM
US abandons International Criminal Court treaty
The United States renounced its legal obligation to support the treaty that creates the International Criminal Court because of flaws in its mandate that leave it unaccountable, the US special envoy for war crimes said.
The move releases the United States from a commitment not to take any action that would defeat the "object or purpose" of the treaty, Pierre-Richard Prosper said. That commitment stemmed from Washington's signing of the treaty two years ago during former president Bill Clinton's administration.
Prosper's comments came as Washington's number three diplomat, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Marc Grossman, made a similar announcement in a speech, and the UN mission at the United Nations made the decision official in a letter to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.
The letter, signed by US Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, said that the United States did not intend to become a party to the treaty.
"Accordingly the United States has no legal obligations rising from its signature on December 31 2000," Bolton wrote.
The Clinton administration signed the treaty but made clear that it believed the accord was flawed and said it did not intend to submit it to the US Senate for ratification.
The ICC is being created under a 1998 Rome agreement signed by countries eager to set up an international body to prosecute genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Treaty opponents, particularly US lawmakers and decision makers in the Bush administration, say the court could be used by critics of the United States against US service members participating in military operations overseas.
But supporters argue that the ICC is the missing link in the international legal system because the existing International Court of Justice at The Hague handles only litigation between states, not individuals.
In making the announcements, both Prosper and Grossman insisted that the United States remained committed to punishing war crimes and crimes against humanity, but that the ICC was not the proper place to do it.
"It undermines the (UN) Security Council," Prosper said. "It is a flawed document that has insufficient safeguards to prevent exploitation of the process and politicization of the process.
"Despite the fact that we are committed to combating these abuses, combating war crimes and saw the goal of accountability as a noble one, given the current state of the court and treaty document, the only option we have left is to take the action we are taking today," he said.
Although Washington is abandoning the treaty and its legal obligation not to undermine it, Prosper said the United States would not fight to destroy the court.
"We are not going to attack, assail, or wage war on the ICC," he said.
Instead, Prosper and Grossman said the United States would seek to assist war-ravaged countries rebuild their justice systems and create processes of accountability so that an international court was unnecessary.
They also said the United States would support on merit the UN Security Council if it acted to create an ad hoc tribunal for a specific country, such as has been done with the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.
Prosper outlined several ways in which the United States would work with countries to rebuild their legal systems and establish accountability, including working with the private sector to fund legal programs, and possibly tribunals themselves, human rights groups and US universities and law schools.
Asked whether it was feasible for the infrastructure of a country's court system to be funded by a private corporation, Prosper replied: "Yes," and speculated that a company like software giant Microsoft might want to help pay for a law library or donate computers.
It was not immediately clear how rights groups and other justice organizations -- which have supported the ICC and severely criticized the US move -- would respond to the unusual US proposal.
Ahead of the formal announcement, 23 prominent US human rights advocates blasted the decision as rash, and Amnesty International-USA Director Bill Schulz said it meant that the United States was "turning its back on decades of US leadership in prosecuting war criminals since the Nuremberg trials."
"Unsigning is an unprecedented act that has little practical effect, but is symbolically powerful because it undermines American leadership and credibility at the worst possible time," the advocates said in a statement.
But Prosper insisted that there was "common ground" from which Washington could work with non-governmental organizations, the United Nations and others interested in the pursuit of justice.
"No NGO, no government, no international organization can dispute our view that it is best to create the capacity and rebuild the capacity of states to deal with this issue," he said.
"We can all agree that states should have the ability to exercise the rule of law, to regulate and control the events within their borders."
To date, 66 nations have ratified the treaty, six more than required to trigger its entry into force. The court will come into being July 1, and is expected to be ready to start work in The Hague early next year.
sg.news.yahoo.com |
