Dispute over Criminal Court leads to Compromise
July 13, 2002
The United Nations has voted unanimously to exempt US peacekeepers from prosecution by the new International Criminal Court (ICC) for a year – ending a fierce row with the US which threatened future peacekeeping operations across the globe.
The US, which regards the court as an affront to US sovereignty, has warned it would veto future peacekeeping missions wherever it believed US troops might be prosecuted.
The US’ veto led to weeks of wrangling and pitted the United States against all 15 European Union nations, and numerous other advocates of the International Criminal Court.
In the end, the US backed down from seeking permanent immunity, enabling the UN to find a compromise.
Resolution to an ongoing dispute
The compromise, which was proposed last Friday, fell short of Bush administration’s demands for complete immunity, but saved future US peacekeeping missions including the mission in Bosnia, which was immediatey renewed.
The resolution calls for a 12 month exemption in investigating or prosecuting UN peacekeepers from countries which do not support the court, "if a case arises".
The Security Council will have to renew this immunity on an annual basis, leaving the Council still the option to remove this protection method.
"No detention of any American by the court"
After meeting the compromise, US ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, said the resolution offered a degree of protection but warned that the US Government would never permit the detention of any American by the court.
"We cannot accept a struture that may transform the political criticism of America’s world role into the basis for criminal trials of Americans who have put their lives on the line for freedom", he said.
But British Ambassador Sir Jeremy Greenstock was careful to add that the resolution was less sweeping than it appeared. "There is no mention of blanket immunity. What is being provided is a ‘time out’".
Meanwhile, supporters of the new crime court expressed their disappointment with the compromise, which they say has set a bad precedent of Security Council interference in an internationally agreed treaty. Canada’s ambassador Paul Heinbecker said "We don’t think it’s in the mandate of the Security Council to interpret treaties that are negotiated somewhere else".
"We think this is a sad day for the United Nations".
He said the court’s statutes required a threat to international peace and security before the Security Council could act and "we don’t think (that) had been established".
The new court
Some 76 nations have ratified the 1988 Rome treaty which enabled the International Criminal Court, and 139 nations have signed it.
The court is the first permanent court to try individuals for the world’s worst atrocities: war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. It is a belated effort to fulfill the promise of the Nuremberg trials 56 years ago, in which Nazi leaders were prosecuted for war crimes.
The court is due to begin work in around one year in The Hague.