|
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT COMING INTO BEING; Senator Daniel Inouye Kills Anti-ICC Legislation A last-minute decision to drop legislative protection for U.S. military personnel against an International Criminal Court (ICC) continues to generate controversy on Capitol Hill. This has set the stage for the implementation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) treaty, with jurisdiction over U.S. military personnel. The ICC may become a reality on April 11, when the 60th country is expected to ratify the treaty. Legislation called the "American Servicemembers' Protection Act" had passed the House of Representatives by a 282 to 137 vote last May and the Senate by a 78 to 21 vote in December. The bill went to a conference committee to iron out differences between the House and Senate versions and was going to be signed by President Bush. The bill was intended to protect members of the U.S. Armed Forces from unjust and illegal prosecution by the ICC. But the legislation was then dropped from the final Defense Appropriations bill. The conference committee met in secret, but sources said that Senator Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, removed the anti-ICC legislation. "All the hard work and solidarity paid off," declared Human Rights Watch, a supporter of the ICC. The World Federalist Association, another ICC supporter, hailed the move, saying that the ICC "is going to happen" and that the U.S. will have to learn to live with it. CNSNews.com reports that Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) is sponsoring House Concurrent Resolution 23, calls on President Bush to declare that the U.S. has no intention of ratifying such a bill. In a letter Paul sent to other congressmen, he said the treaty "conflicts with the Constitution, American sovereignty, and individual liberty." Paul is also concerned that under the treaty, the fate of Americans overseas could be determined by representatives of nations that are unfriendly toward the U.S., like Cuba. (see below) Meantime, the U.S. continues to insist that foreign leaders comply with the demands of U.N. criminal tribunals. But turning the tables on his accusers once again, former Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic has said that Serb troops in Kosovo were fighting Muslim terrorists associated with Osama bin Laden. At a recent hearing before the U.N. court that is trying him, press reports said that he "brandished what he said was an FBI document concerning Al Qaeda-backed Muslim fighters in Kosovo as he insisted…that ethnic Albanian separatists were the true villains there." Milosevic said, "This is a congressional statement of the FBI. That's what this is." Press reports in the Washington Times, the Los Angeles Times, and other papers said that Milosevic declared that the report was dated December 18th. But stories added, "The authenticity of the document could not be independently confirmed, and he gave no details of how he obtained it. But witness Sabit Kadriu said he knew nothing of activity by Osama bin Laden in Kosovo, where a Serbian crackdown on ethnic Albanians triggered North Atlantic Treaty Organization airstrikes in 1999. 'It's not true there were mujahideen in Kosovo. This is a fiction of your mind,' the 41-year-old ethnic Albanian said." There's nothing controversial about the claims of Milosevic, and there's no excuse at this late date for the press to question charges that bin Laden was active in Kosovo against the Serbs. This is a well-established fact. It is not a fiction of anyone's mind. Bin Laden himself issued statements condemning the Serbs. There is also nothing mysterious about the FBI document alluded to by Milosevic. It is a statement by J. T. Caruso, the Acting Assistant Director of the CounterTerrorism Division of the FBI , and is available on the Internet. Although his prepared statement didn't specifically mention Kosovo, Caruso did cite Albania, where some of the Muslim terrorists that attacked Serbia were based The FBI statement was delivered before the Senate Subcommittee on International Operations and Terrorism of the Committee on Foreign Relations. The American Forces News Network, which is distributed by the Pentagon, had documented Al Qaeda's operations in Kosovo and many other countries. Its story said, "Al Qaeda has cells in Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Turkey, Jordan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Syria, China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Burma, Indonesia, the Philippines, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Yemen, Libya, Tunisia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Dagestan, Sudan, Somalia, Kenya, Tanzania, Azerbaijan, Eritrea, Uganda, Ethiopia and in the West Bank and Gaza." The New York Times noted last December that NATO had raided the offices of an American charity in Kosovo as part of an investigation that linked two large Muslim charities based in Illinois to fund-raising for bin Laden and his Al Qaeda network. NATO said its raids targeted two offices of the Global Relief Foundation, and the soldiers acted "after receiving credible intelligence information that individuals working for this organization may have been directly involved in supporting worldwide international terrorist activities." So Milosevic is really on trial for fighting terrorism? ________________________________ Rep. Ron Paul Introduces Anti-ICC Resolution: http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2001/pr020701.htm
Paul Introduces Resolution Opposing International Criminal Court Washington, D.C.- Congressman Ron Paul today introduced HCR 23, a resolution calling for Congress and the President to renounce U.S. support for the United Nations international criminal court (ICC). Paul has been an outspoken critic of the UN in general and the ICC in particular, pointing out the threat to U.S. sovereignty posed by a court with international jurisdiction. A Clinton administration ambassador quietly signed the ICC treaty on December 31st, despite strong opposition to the proposal from both parties in Congress and even some administration officials. Although the Senate has not yet ratified the treaty, UN observers and international law experts warn that UN officials view the signature as tantamount to American support for the ICC. Paul's resolution calls for President Bush to declare that the U.S. does not intend to ratify or assent to the ICC treaty. "UN bureaucrats don't care whether our Senate ratifies the ICC treaty or not," Paul stated. "The Clinton administration signed the treaty, and the UN views the signature as final. It arrogantly announced that signatures from 60 nations will suffice to authorize creation of the international court. Once the court is in place, the UN will have the mechanism it needs to enforce its global edicts against American citizens. What about rights guaranteed to all U.S. citizens by the Constitution, such as due process, jury trials, the right against self-incrimination, and the prohibition against unreasonable searches? The ICC represents the next step toward global government: first the UN created its unconstitutional laws, and now it needs an international court to give teeth to the laws. President Bush should act now to revoke any symbol of U.S. support for this terrible treaty."Paul plans to seek support for the resolution among his colleagues on the International Relations committee. "This is not a partisan issue," he concluded. "This is an issue of American sovereignty. American citizens have a right to Constitutional protections. Congress must insure that no American ever faces trial before an unconstitutional international court." IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 8, 2001
Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. GOODE, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. BARTLETT of
Maryland, and Mr. DUNCAN) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which
was referred to the Committee on International Relations
Expressing the sense of the Congress that President George W. Bush should
declare to all nations that the United States does not intend to assent to or
ratify the International Criminal Court Treaty, also referred to as the Rome
Statute of the International Criminal Court, and the signature of former
President Clinton to that treaty should not be construed otherwise. Whereas the
International Criminal Court Treaty would establish the International Criminal
Court as an international authority with power to threaten the ability of the
United States to engage in military action to provide for its national defense;
Whereas former President Clinton's designee signed the International Criminal
Court Treaty on December 31, 2000; Whereas the term `crimes of aggression', as
used in the treaty, is not specifically defined and therefore would, by design
and effect, require the United States to receive prior United Nations Security
Council approval and International Criminal Court confirmation before engaging
in military action, thereby putting United States military officers in jeopardy
of an International Criminal Court prosecution; Whereas the International Criminal Court Treaty creates the possibility that
United States civilians, like United States military personnel, could be brought
before a court that bypasses the United States Government; Whereas the people of
the United States are self-governing, and they have a constitutional right to be
tried in accordance with the laws that their elected representatives enact and
to be judged by their peers and no others; Whereas the treaty would subject
United States individuals who appear before the International Criminal Court to
trial and punishment without the rights and protections that the United States
Constitution guarantees, including trial by a jury of one's peers, protection
from double jeopardy, the right to know the evidence brought against one, the
right to confront one's accusers, and the right to a speedy trial; Whereas the Supreme Court stated in Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416, 433
(1920), Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), and DeGeofrey v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258,
267 (1890) that the United States Government may not enter into a treaty that
contravenes prohibitory words in the United States Constitution because the
treaty power does not authorize what the Constitution forbids; Whereas the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that a
party is not bound to a treaty unless it has consented to be bound; Whereas the International Criminal Court Treaty breaks substantially with
accepted norms of international law because it extends its jurisdiction even to
the nationals of countries that do not sign and ratify the treaty; Whereas the International Criminal Court would be empowered unilaterally to
investigate, try, and punish certain crimes, contrary to the current
international norm of affording countries the primary responsibility for
punishing these crimes; Whereas approval of the International Criminal Court
Treaty is in fundamental conflict with the constitutional oaths of the President
and Senators, because the United States Constitution clearly provides that `[a]ll
legislative powers shall be vested in a Congress of the United States', and
vested powers cannot be transferred; Whereas each of the 4 types of offenses over which the International Criminal
Court may obtain jurisdiction is within the legislative and judicial authority
of the United States; Whereas the International Criminal Court Treaty creates a
supranational court that would exercise the judicial power constitutionally
reserved only to the United States and thus is in direct violation of the United
States Constitution; Whereas in order to make a treaty, the United States Constitution requires
the President to obtain the advice and consent of the Senate and the concurrence
of the Senate by a 2/3 vote; and Whereas former President Clinton signed the International Criminal Court
Treaty but expressed his intention not to submit the treaty to the Senate,
thereby rendering his act procedurally inadequate and unconstitutional: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That
it is the sense of Congress that-- (2) President George W. Bush should declare to all nations that the United
States does not intend to assent to or ratify the treaty and the signature of
former President Clinton to the treaty should not be construed otherwise. _________________________________ World
court now a reality - Will
supersede national sovereignty, even of countries refusing to ratify Posted: April 11, 2002 By Mary Jo Anderson NEW YORK – The International Criminal Court was officially
instituted today at the United Nations headquarters.
The court, a permanent tribunal to prosecute "crimes
against humanity," strides onto the world stage without the ratification
of the United States. Deemed by some as a grave threat to national
sovereignty, the United States has lodged strenuous objections to the ICC. As
late as Monday there were reports that President Bush had sought means to
retract the signature of former president Clinton, who signed the treaty on
his last day in office. A signature indicates a nation's intent to seek
ratification.
However, the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee would not
bring the treaty to the Senate for a vote.
The Rome Statute, a treaty calling for the establishment of a
world court to prosecute gross human rights abuse, was launched in 1998. The
U.S., China, Iraq and Israel voted against the Statute that year, while
nations that favored the court first signed, then ratified the treaty. The
final four of the 60 ratifications necessary for the court to become operative
were received today as the ninth preparatory committee session ("prepcom")
of the International Criminal Court opened at the U.N.
The prepcom, chaired by Philippe Kirsch of Canada, will
finalize the arrangements for nomination and election procedures for ICC
judges. The first Assembly of States Parties is scheduled for this September
at The Hague, Netherlands. Norway has agreed to contribute 784,000 Euros to
cover early budgetary requirements for the Court.
Objections to the court by Americans are based largely on
fears that such a court could bring politically motivated charges against U.S.
presidents and military personnel. Crimes of "aggression" have not
as yet been defined, leaving open to future interpretation any number of
military operations. When one nation defends itself, is that aggression
against another? So-called crimes against humanity include vague phrases such
as injury to a population's "mental health." Who is to determine
when such a crime has been perpetrated?
Any U.S. citizens prosecuted by the International Criminal
Court will be denied the guarantees of the U.S. Constitution. As of yet, the
process for electing and rotating ICC judges is incomplete. Opponents of the
court suggest that world events in the near future could find the U.S. and its
citizens at the mercy of a panel of judges from non-Western nations, or of
nations that seek to extort favorable trade agreements from the U.S. Critics
ask: What is to prevent the court from prosecuting a U.S. president that
topples Saddam Hussein without first seeking assurance from the U.N. that such
military activity would not be categorized as a war crime?
U.S. treaty specialists underscore the unique danger of the
ICC: It is not a treaty among parties in agreement, but is instead a new, and
many believe dangerous, species of an international instrument that
subordinates all nation states in the world to the rule of the United Nations'
court. The ICC can prosecute whenever it deems a nation's courts have failed
to prosecute its own violators of "human rights." Never before has
such power been held over nation states, say court critics.
Opponents of the ICC cite as an example of U.N. interference
in domestic matters the April 4 report by U.N. special rapporteur on judges
and lawyers Param Cumaraswamy. After a six-week investigation, Cumaraswamy
accused Italian politicians of "interfering in the country's justice
system." The rapporteur demanded a reform of the Italian justice
system.
American supporters of the ICC dismiss those objections as
"overwrought." Clinton appointee David Scheffer, former U.S.
ambassador for war crimes, described the institution of the court as a
"significant moment in world history." Scheffer, who was Clinton's
point man for the ICC negotiations, now serves as senior vice president of the
United Nations Association of the USA, a U.N. advocacy group.
Key European allies have accused the Bush administration's
refusal to support the court as an example of U.S. "unilateralism"
in an interdependent world. During important U.N. negotiations on issues from
children's rights to trade disputes, European delegates have been increasingly
hostile to what they characterize as the United States' "Lone
Ranger" attitude. One U.S. delegate to the United Nations, who spoke on
the condition of anonymity, noted that Europeans were restless with American
dominance since the fall of communist Russia: "They see the ICC as one
means to curb U.S. power on this planet."
Several U.S. allies, notably Canada, have urged the Bush
administration to support the court as a means to hold genocidal tyrants
accountable for their crimes. Heretofore, special tribunals were held to try
those charged with war crimes, such as Slobodan Milosevic. The ICC has the
power to bring charges against individuals without the consent of their
government.
The mechanism for charging citizens without the cooperation of
their government – including those nations, such as the United States, that
have refused to ratify the treaty – requires that charges be brought by the
United Nations itself on behalf of another nation, ethnic group or
non-governmental organization. Critics of the International Criminal Court
fear that granting such powers to the United Nations sends a message that the
U.N. is the definitive world organization that supersedes all nation states
– which many regard as a serious assault on the concept of national
sovereignty.
The ICC is a concept that dates from the WW II Nuremberg
Trials. The United Nations pushed for the establishment of the court after the
demise of the Cold War. The adoption of the Rome Statute in 1998 initiated
sessions to draw up Rules of Procedure and Evidence for the Court. The U.S.
has participated in those sessions, but was unable to delete all of the
provisions it considered a threat to U.S. sovereignty.
Final ratifications from Bulgaria, Cambodia, Colombia,
Ireland, Jordan, Mongolia, Romania, and Slovakia were deposited with the U.N.
Secretary General's office.
The court will formally open for business July 1 in the
Netherlands where temporary quarters for the court have been secured. The ICC
cannot retroactively prosecute crimes under its jurisdiction. __________________________________ U.N. Ratifies
Establishment of Permanent War Crimes Tribunal UNITED NATIONS — Despite
vehement U.S. opposition, the world's first permanent war crimes tribunal
will come into force on July 1, after receiving more than the 60 required
ratifications Thursday from U.S. allies and nations around the globe. Hundreds of supporters of
the court rose to their feet in a standing ovation after 10 nations
deposited their ratifications of the Rome treaty, which establishes the
International Criminal Court. "A page in the
history of humankind is being turned," U.N. Undersecretary-General
Hans Corell said after the last envoy presented his country's
ratification. "May all this serve our society well in the years to
come!" For many countries and
organizations, the establishment of the court is a milestone, the
culmination of years of campaigning to ensure that the perpetrators of the
worst crimes committed by individuals are brought to justice. For the Bush
administration, however, the court is an unwelcome addition to the
international legal establishment. Even though
then-President Clinton signed the treaty, the United States has refused to
ratify it, fearing its citizens would be subject to frivolous or
politically motivated prosecutions. Washington has campaigned
unsuccessfully to exempt U.S. soldiers and officials, and two weeks ago
the Bush administration said it was considering "unsigning" the
treaty to stress that it won't be bound by its provisions. It is the only
vocal opponent of the court. The court will step in
only when countries are unwilling or unable to dispense justice themselves
for the most serious crimes committed by individuals: genocide, crimes
against humanity and war crimes. It will have jurisdiction only over
crimes committed after the treaty enters into force. Cases can come to the
court through a state that has ratified the treaty, the U.N. Security
Council, or the court's prosecutor, who must get the approval of a
three-judge panel. After the ratifications
were submitted Thursday, a U.N. legal official announced the court would
come into force on July 1. The court is expected to
become operational soon after the states that ratified it meet in early
2003 to select a prosecutor and judges, said Philippe Kirsch, chairman of
the commission preparing for the court's operation and Canada's ambassador
to Sweden. The 1998 Rome treaty has
been signed by 139 countries -- and supporters have pledged to keep
campaigning to make it universal. The treaty needed to be
ratified by 60 nations to come into effect. Ten countries submitted their
ratifications Thursday — Bosnia, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Congo, Ireland,
Jordan, Mongolia, Niger, Romania and Slovakia — putting the total number
at 66. All 10 nations will go down as number 60 to spread the honor. Richard Dicker, director
of the International Justice Program at Human Rights Watch, said
"signs are good" that between 90 and 100 countries will have
ratified the treaty by early next year. "The International
Criminal Court is potentially the most important human rights institution
created in 50 years. It will be the court where the Saddam Husseins, Pol
Pots and Agosto Pinochets of the future are held to account," Dicker
said, referring to Iraq's president, Cambodia's late Khmer Rouge leader,
and the former Chilean dictator. Kirsch said he believes
that once the court shows it will act in "a very judicial and
nonpolitical way," there will be less opposition. "In my view, given
the United States' tradition of commitment to international justice, it is
a matter of time before there is some form of cooperation developing
between the United States and an institution of this importance," he
said. The court will fill a gap
first recognized by the U.N. General Assembly in 1948 following the
Nuremberg and Tokyo trials for World War II's German and Japanese war
criminals, respectively. Since then, laws and treaties have outlawed
genocide, poison gas and chemical weapons, among other things, but no
mechanism has held individuals criminally responsible. In the past 50 years,
more than 86 million civilians died in some 250 conflicts around the
world, and more than 170 million people were stripped of their rights,
property and dignity, according to the Coalition for the International
Criminal Court, which represents some 1,000 organizations and legal
experts. "Most of these
victims have been simply forgotten and few perpetrators have been brought
to justice," the coalition said. ________________________________________ Posted: April 11, 2002
By Aleksandar Pavic BELGRADE -- With the ratification of the
treaty establishing the permanent International Criminal Court taking
place today, a glimpse of what the future under the new global legal
system may look like may be found in Yugoslavia.
Last night, at 7:10 local time, in front of
the main entrance to the Yugoslav Federal Parliament, former Serbian
Police Minister Vlajko Stoiljkovic attempted to commit suicide. He did so
as the second chamber of parliament ratified the "Law on the
Cooperation of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia with the International
Criminal Court," the first chamber having passed it one day earlier.
The Yugoslav parliament is adopting the
legislation under intense diplomatic pressure from the United States and
the European Union.
Stoiljkovic was certain to be one of the
first people extradited, and had said repeatedly that he would never allow
himself to be taken to The Hague alive. Although doctors are keeping him
alive in intensive care, some see Stoiljkovic's act as a chilling portent
of things to come.
While this new Yugoslav law specifically
refers to "cooperation" with the ad hoc "Tribunal for War
Crimes in the Former Yugoslavia" established by a U.N. Security
Council resolution in 1993, and not the permanent ICC, its modus operandi
is expected by many legal scholars to serve as the model for the latter.
The Belgrade daily, Glas Javnosti, has
published the draft of the law. Here is what some of its provisions say:
Article 1 Paragraph 2
The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY)
shall respect and carry out the judicial decisions of the Tribunal and
extend legal aid to its investigatory and judicial organs.
Article 4 Paragraph 1
A demand for cooperation or the execution
of the Tribunal's decisions shall be accepted if they are based on the
provisions of the Statute and Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the
International Criminal Court. Article 8 Paragraph 1
The International Criminal Tribunal may
open offices on the territory of the FRY. Article 9
The investigative organs and the Tribunal's
prosecutor may, for the purposes of investigating criminal acts under its
jurisdiction, undertake the following actions on the territory of the FRY: 1) collect information from its citizens;
2) question suspects, accused, victims,
witnesses and court experts, including the performance of autopsies and
exhumations;
3) collect material evidence;
4) view and transcribe legal documents,
including those made or collected by Yugoslav judicial or other organs in
connection with the violation of international humanitarian law. Article 10 Paragraph 1 of the law states:
"[T]he representatives of the Tribunal may not apply compulsory
measures limiting the rights and liberties of the citizens of the FRY or
other persons on its territory, nor act in violation of the standards of
international law."
However, Paragraph 2 leaves the provision
that "if there arises a need for measures that limit the rights and
liberties of citizens, the Tribunal's investigative organs shall apply to
the competent organs of the FRY for their execution."
Article 13 Paragraph 3 contains a provision
allowing double jeopardy:
3) Exceptionally, a criminal proceeding
that has ended with a legal verdict shall be conceded to the Tribunal if
the Tribunal's demand calls for a repeating of the procedure before the
Tribunal according to the provisions of Article 10 Paragraph 2 of the
Tribunal's Statute. Article 15 demonstrates the absolute
superiority of the Tribunal over domestic courts:
1) A criminal proceeding before a domestic
court that is allowed to be conceded to the Tribunal, shall be stopped. 2) If such conceding to the Tribunal is
allowed, and the subject of the proceeding before the domestic court is a
criminal act not under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the procedure
before the domestic court shall be interrupted until the conclusion of the
proceeding before the Tribunal.
3) If the verdict of a court of the FRY
regarding an act whose prosecution was conceded has become legal, the
sentence shall not be executed, and if it is being executed, it shall be
interrupted on the day the accused is turned over to the Tribunal. Under Article 23:
The organs of police shall arrest the
accused without a court order if an arrest warrant has been issued against
him by a competent domestic organ or the International Criminal Court. Article 29 Paragraph 2
The conditions for extradition have been
fulfilled if it is determined that the said demand refers to a person
against whom proceedings have been initiated, that an indictment according
to Article 19 of the Tribunal's Statute has been confirmed against the
person in question, that it refers to an act also punishable by domestic
law, and that it is a criminal act falling under the jurisdiction of the
Tribunal (Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Statute). Article 32
1) Upon demand from the Tribunal, the
competent state organs of the FRY shall perform investigatory acts,
collect the necessary data on the criminal act and their performer and
other data relevant to the criminal proceeding, issue an arrest warrant,
take witness protection measures, deliver calls and other written
communication sent by the Tribunal to persons residing in the FRY and
perform other acts relevant to the procedure before the Tribunal. 2) The Tribunal's representatives shall be
allowed presence in the performance of the acts provided for in Paragraph
1 of this article, as well as be allowed to pose questions, make
suggestions and perform other acts in connection with the proceeding. Article 33
At the Tribunal's request, the Federal
Justice Ministry shall allow the transit of the accused, witnesses and
other persons over the territory of the FRY. Article 38
1) The judges, prosecutor and registrar of
the Tribunal enjoy the immunity and privileges accorded to diplomatic
representatives serving in the FRY. 2) Employees of the Tribunal's office and
its other representatives enjoy the immunity and privileges recognized by
international law. The law about to be passed by the Yugoslav
parliament is designed to be a political expedient, brought for the
purposes of reducing U.S. and EU pressure on the country until a new
constitutional law can be brought. (Last month, the EU brokered a deal by
which the present Yugoslav federation has ceased to exist, to be replaced
by a "loose confederation" made up of the country's two
republics, Serbia and Montenegro, whose name the new country will carry. A
new "constitutional charter" is supposed to be completed by June
of this year.)
In connection with this, the opposition
Socialist and Serbian Radical parties argued during the parliamentary
debate on the law that it was "unconstitutional" and that those
that proposed it would "sooner or later" have to legally answer
for it.
One of the members of the coalition that
supports the law, the Socialist Peoples Party of Montenegro, which agreed
to support the law only at the last minute under intensifying threats of
new international economic sanctions against Yugoslavia, has stated openly
that the law shall apply only to the 20 "suspects" for which
indictments have already been issued, and that any further extraditions,
barring a change in the constitution, would constitute a "serious
violation of the law."
On the other hand, Florence Hartman,
spokeswoman for the Hague Chief Prosecutor, Carla del Ponte, in an earlier
interview with the Voice of America, declared that "the law was not
necessary," and that the Statute of the Tribunal was automatically
superior to any national law.
Yugoslav Minister of Justice Vladan Batic
confirmed that the "international community and The Hague are much
more interested in effects than in our talk about laws. What is important
is that extraditions take place." He added that the extradition
procedure should last 10-11 days "at most" following the law's
passage, which is when the first extraditions should be expected.
Serbian prime minister Zoran Djindjic has
stated that he expects that this law has "fulfilled" the demands
posed by the "international community" and "regulated"
the country's relations with the United States, whose Congress has
conditioned further economic aid and support on "cooperation"
with the Hague Tribunal.
At the same time, there are voices in the
U.S. raising concern at the establishment of the permanent International
Criminal Court.
The U.S. Ambassador for War Crimes,
Pierre-Richard Prosper, who traveled to Belgrade last week in order to
apply pressure on the Yugoslav government to "cooperate" with
the ad hoc Hague Tribunal, has himself expressed grave reservations
regarding the permanent ICC, stating last week that "the removing of
signature [from the treaty], unsigning, is within the range of options
that we are considering."
However, according to its charter, the
permanent ICC shall have jurisdiction over all the world's nations, even
those that haven't signed or ratified the treaty that institutes it as a
body of the United Nations. It shall initially try "war crimes,
crimes against humanity and genocide," but the ability to continually
amend its statute carries with it the potential for an indefinite
expansion of the new International Criminal Court's powers.
Aleksandar
Pavic in Belgrade covers Yugoslavia for WorldNetDaily.com. ____________________________________ Welcome
to the New World - Court At a ceremony at U.N. headquarters, 10
countries bring the total number of ratifications from 56 to 66 -- six
more than needed to bring the treaty establishing the tribunal into force
on July 1. The 10 are Bosnia, Bulgaria, Cambodia,
Congo, Ireland, Jordan, Mongolia, Niger, Romania and Slovakia. All deposit
their ratification papers at the same time so that the honor of being the
60th nation will not just go to one country. "It is an extremely significant moment
in world history, the achievement of this court," said David Scheffer,
the former U.S. ambassador for war crimes in the Clinton administration. While it will be only months for the treaty
officially to come into force to investigate and prosecute war crimes,
mass murder and other gross human rights violations, the court -- based in
the Hague -- is expected to be functioning in 2003. Furious at the concept of an international
court, a number of U.S. congressmen have proposed measures forbidding U.S.
contact with the tribunal and punishing nations who do. The Bush administration is also considering
withdrawing former President Bill Clinton's signature on the treaty,
setting Washington on a collision course with the European Union , the
driving force behind the court. But the complicated treaty has been
ratified much sooner than anticipated. Canada's Phillipe Kirsch, president
of the court's preparatory commission, said optimists expected the 60
approvals in 10 years and pessimists thought it would take 20. "There has been a sea change against
the impunity associated with horrific crimes," said Richard Dicker,
associate counsel of Human Rights Watch. "What the Bush
administration decides to do will not derail that but put it on the wrong
side of history." Spurred by the Nazi war crimes tribunal at
Nuremberg at the end of World War II, the court has been an off and on
issue over the past half century. Germany now is one of its strongest
advocates, as were numerous officials in Israel's former Labor government,
which was among 139 states who signed the treaty. The final impetus came after the U.N.
Security Council established temporary tribunals to deal with war crimes
in the former Yugoslavia and genocide in Rwanda. The new court, which
cannot try crimes retroactively, would obviate the need for any future ad
hoc tribunals. "Those two back-to-back genocides were
the engine that has driven this process as fast as it has," Dicker
said. "It is a tribute to the victims." The absence of a permanent court, human
rights leaders say, had made it impossible to try such suspects as Pol
Pot, who led a Cambodian government that left 1 million people dead in the
1970s, or Iraqi President Saddam Hussein , who used poison gas on
rebellious Kurds in 1988. NOT EVERYONE COMES TO THE PARTY However, not everyone is coming to
Thursday's party. Russia and China have held their distance and Asia,
compared to Latin and America and Africa, is the only continent where few
nations back the court. The Bush administration, as the Clinton
administration before it, opposes the entire concept of the court and
fears that Americans on duty abroad would be vulnerable to frivolous or
ideological prosecutions. American servicemen, for example, would
only be subject to the court's jurisdiction if the United States failed to
investigate their war crime and the territory on which the crime was
committed had ratified the treaty. Clinton signed the treaty to have some
influence over nations who will set up the court but made clear he would
not submit it to Congress for ratification. Now the Republican administration of
President George W. Bush is considering rescinding his signature, opposing
the concept of an international tribunal unless approved by the U.N.
Security Council, where Washington has a veto. "Anything is possible. What's possible
is that we will remain a signatory or that we may not," said
Pierre-Richard Prosper, the U.S. ambassador-at-large for war crimes. Scheffer said such a step would send a
"powerful signal" to other countries that have signed but not
yet ratified other treaties important to the United States. "And they would be given a green light
to unsign such treaties as the one on chemical weapons, torture or the 12
anti-terrorist conventions," he said. "We need to stay in the
game and observe how the court operates." _____________________________ UN Forges War Crimes Tribunal -
World's First Permanent War Crimes Tribunal Set To Debut on July 1 UNITED
NATIONS April 11 — The world's
first permanent war crimes tribunal got the necessary international
backing Thursday to come into force on July 1, a milestone hailed by human
rights advocates and many nations but strongly opposed by the United
States.
A dream ever since the United Nations was
established over five decades ago, the court became a reality when its
founding treaty received the required 60 ratifications. At a brief ceremony at U.N. headquarters,
over 500 supporters of the tribunal rose in a standing ovation after 10
nations deposited their ratifications, bringing the number of countries
now legally bound to cooperate with the International Criminal Court to
66. "The time is at last coming when
humanity no longer has to bear impotent witness to the worst atrocities,
because those tempted to commit such crimes will know that justice awaits
them," U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in a video message from
Rome, where the treaty was adopted in 1998. "Let it be a deterrent to
the wicked, and a ray of hope for the innocent and helpless." Those hopes were echoed by France, Sweden
Denmark and the Coalition for the International Criminal Court, which
represents some 1,000 organizations. "Too much of history is the story of
wars won and peace lost. Today, peace has won and war has lost," said
William Pace, who heads the coalition. "It will be the court where the Saddam
Husseins, Pol Pots and Agosto Pinochets of the future are held to
account," said Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice
Program at Human Rights Watch, referring to Iraq's president, Cambodia's
late Khmer Rouge leader, and the former Chilean dictator. Even though then-U.S. President Bill
Clinton signed the Rome treaty, the U.S. seat in the crowded chamber was
empty. The Bush administration boycotted the ceremony, just as it has not
attended plenary meetings preparing for the court's operations. Pierre-Richard Prosper, the U.S. ambassador
for war crimes, restated President Bush's opposition to the treaty and
refusal to ratify it. The United States fears American citizens would be
subject to frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions. It is the only
vocal opponent of the court. "The goal is noble and we agree with
the goal of accountability for war crimes. What we disagree with is this
precise mechanism for putting this goal in place," Prosper said in a
conference call to reporters from Washington. Two weeks ago, Prosper said the United
States was considering "unsigning" the treaty to stress that it
will not be bound by its provisions. Although he said Thursday that no
decision will be made in the next few weeks, his comments indicated that
Bush will withdraw the U.S. signature. "We don't want to cause confusion or
create expectations that we will be part of this process," Prosper
said. "We do believe that if we are not a party to the treaty we are
not under the jurisdiction of the treaty." The court will fill a gap in the
international justice system first recognized by the U.N. General Assembly
in 1948 after the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials for World War II's German and
Japanese war criminals. At present, the International Court of
Justice deals with disputes between states. Tribunals have been created
for special situations, like the 1994 Rwanda genocide and war crimes in
former Yugoslavia. But no mechanism existed to hold individuals criminally
responsible. In the past 50 years, more than 86 million
civilians died in some 250 conflicts around the world, and more than 170
million people were stripped of their rights, property and dignity,
according to the Coalition for the Court. "Most of these victims have been
simply forgotten and few perpetrators have been brought to justice,"
it said. The court will step in only when countries
are unwilling or unable to dispense justice themselves for the most
serious crimes committed by individuals: genocide, crimes against
humanity, war crimes, and eventually crimes of aggression when parties
agree to a definition. It will have jurisdiction only over crimes
committed after the treaty enters into force. Cases can come to the court
through a state that has ratified the treaty, the U.N. Security Council,
or the court's prosecutor, who must get the approval of a three-judge
panel. Washington has campaigned unsuccessfully to
exempt U.S. soldiers and officials from its jurisdiction, arguing that the
safeguards against political prosecutions are not sufficient. "The prosecutor and a handful of
judges could make a political decision to prosecute a U.S. official or
serviceman. This is a possibility we take seriously," Prosper said. Philippe Kirsch, chairman of the commission
preparing for the court's operation and Canada's ambassador to Sweden,
said he believes the United States will eventually cooperate with the
court. Kirsch said he expects the court to become
operational soon after the states that have ratified the treaty meet in
early 2003 to select a prosecutor and judges. Richard Dicker, director of the
International Justice Program at Human Rights Watch, said "signs are
good" that between 90 and 100 countries will have ratified the treaty
by early next year.
_______________________________
ON CAPITOL HILL
Bill would keep U.S. out of world court
House measure calls any move against servicemen
'act of aggression'
Posted: April 12, 2002
A Texas lawmaker has drafted a bill that would
ban the United States from participating in the newly formed
International Criminal Court.
Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, is set to introduce "The American Service
member and Citizen Protection Act of
2002," which he said "repudiates ICC jurisdiction over American
citizens." The bill essentially provides that "the International
Criminal Court is not valid with respect to the United States," said a
draft copy
obtained by WorldNetDaily. Paul said his bill seeks to protect "American
citizens against the ICC by urging President Bush to rescind the
foolish Clinton administration signature of the ICC treaty." It
would also ban
"the use of U.S. taxpayer funds for the court,
and deems ICC actions against U.S. servicemen acts of
aggression against America," said a statement issued by Paul's
office.
"The ICC is completely illegitimate, even under
the U.N.’s own charter," Paul said.
"We characterize this legislation as a
counteroffensive at this point," Jeff Deist, a spokesman for Paul, told
WorldNetDaily. "Congressman Paul has many findings in the bill
that lays out the case against the legitimacy and authority of
the (ICC)."
Among them, said the Texas lawmaker, is the fact
that the world
body's "charter gives neither the U.N. General
Assembly nor any other U.N. agency lawmaking authority."
"In other words," he continued, "there cannot be
U.N. 'laws,' and
there is no valid law authorizing the
establishment of the ICC. The ratification of the ICC treaty, whether by
60 nations or 1,000, does nothing to give the court any legal
authority whatsoever."
The bill notes that that under the terms of the
1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, "no nation
may be bound by a treaty to which that nation has not
consented." "Therefore the United States, which has not
consented" to the ICC "cannot be bound" by its terms, the bill
says.
It notes that the ICC is "wholly unauthorized by
the Charter of
the United Nations." And, it says the ICC
statute "also contravenes the principle of government only by
the consent of the governed," which is "enshrined in the
American national charter, the Declaration of Independence."
The ICC's authority, the bill notes, circumvents
U.S. constitutional "principles of separation of
powers, federalism and
trial by jury that are guaranteed" to Americans.
The ICC "by design and effect, is an
illegitimate court," the bill states.
"The ICC, like the U.N. itself, will be used for
political purposes,"
he said. "Far from being neutral, the court will
serve as a
weapon against disfavored nations and leaders.
Given the anti-American sentiment that pervades the U.N.,
we can only assume that the court will be used one day to
prosecute Americans who offend our many enemies among U.N.
member
states."
As WND reported, the world court was officially
instituted yesterday at the U.N.'s New York City
headquarters. According
to its charter, the ICC is a permanent tribunal
established ostensibly to prosecute "crimes against
humanity." Clinton
signed the treaty on his last day in office,
Jan. 20, 2001, but it has
never been ratified by the Senate. But as late
as Monday there
were reports that President Bush had sought
means to retract
the signature of the former president
Deist confirmed that Bush has talked of finding
a way to
withdraw Clinton's signature, but he said talk
in Washington is sometimes cheap.
"The ICC cannot exercise legitimate jurisdiction
over American citizens," Paul said. "Furthermore, the Senate
cannot
constitutionally ratify any treaty that attempts
to surrender the judicial function to an international agency.
Our Constitution
guarantees every American citizen various rights
before, during and after a criminal arrest and trial, and no
valid treaty can deny our citizens those rights."
Deist told WND that the bill is similar to
legislation introduced in the House and Senate last summer, but that the
Texas lawmaker's bill "is more zesty."
He also said the measure had garnered at least
15 co-sponsors by midday yesterday but it is so new that it has
yet to be assigned a number.
|
