How many of y'all knew that the US was granted a blanket immunity from ICC prosecution? Exempt
How many of you knew that the US forced this solution after threatening a veto of all peacekeeping missions?
This just seems contrary to the idea of democratic determination of the merits of an idea. I do think the US has an obligation to its citizens to protect them from the world - so to speak. That is, when politics can potentially subject US peeps to backlash then, perhaps we should think twice about joining an international gang.
Moreover, the ICC is not officially under the UN umbrella and therefore not subject to added safeguards such as popular support or veto power. Is there a compelling reason for us to join in?
2 comments:
If I am reading the U.N. resolution correctly, I think what you are referring to when you say "blanket exemption" is this paragraph:
1. Requests, consistent with the provisions of Article 16 of the Rome Statute, that the ICC, if a case arises involving current or former officials or personnel from a contributing State not a Party to the Rome Statute over acts or omissions relating to a United Nations established or authorized operation, shall for a twelve-month period starting 1 July 2003 not commence or proceed with investigation or prosecution of any such case, unless the Security Council decides otherwise;
Although I agree with you that functionally, it does exempt the U.S. from a great deal of prosecutions, I think it is exaggerating a slight bit to say that it is a "blanket exemption." There is a time limit on this exemption, which in theory can one day expire. Whether it will be allowed to expire without renewal is another issue.
There are safeguards already in place within the structure of the ICC. For instance, the Prosecutor cannot begin a case without the approval of 2 separate panels of judges with the possibility to appeal to a third. Two-thirds of state parties can remove a judge for misconduct and a simple majority can remove a prosecutor. Also, the Security Council can halt ICC proceedings if they threaten peace, but only with vote of 9/15 members and the vote of all 5 permanent members. The person being investigated may request the removal of a judge, although this is no guarantee the request will be granted. Some of these safeguards do require a significant amount of voting support, but at least they are in place at all.
Post a Comment