Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Xaccers
I thought it was only immunity for it's soldiers whilst on peacekeeping duties for the UN, but they aren't peacekeeping for the UN in Iraq.
So is it definitely all US forces that are immune?
|
Not all.
It goes something like this:
- The UNSC resolution mentioned earlier gives US peacekeepers immunity.
- US forces have immunity in/from various countries due to bilateral deals with those countries' governments.
- The entire US forces in Iraq are effectively immune because Iraq has never signed the ICC treaty *and* because the US has "
unsigned" the ICC treaty (something apparently completely unprecedented - a US President "unsigning" a treaty which a previous President signed):
For the ICC to have jurisdiction over the US forces in Iraq, a case must either be referred to the ICC by the Security Council (but the US would just veto it) -or- it must have been committed in a nation which has accepted the ICC (but Iraq hasn't) -or- it must have been committed by a citizen(s) of a nation which has accepted the ICC (but the US hasn't).
Therefore, US forces in Iraq are effectively immune from the ICC.
But not US forces everywhere.
The ICC could still have jurisdiction over US forces (not peacekeepers) over acts committed in other countries: but *only* countries which have signed up to the ICC, and even then it would *only* be ones which have not made a bilateral deal with the US re the ICC.
Lots of info here:
http://www.usaforicc.org/
http://www.usaforicc.org/facts_index.html
http://www.usaforicc.org/facts_faqs.html
http://www.usaforicc.org/facts_myths.html
and....
specific bit about Iraq:
http://www.wfa.org/issues/wicc/factsheets/iraq.html
Quote:
The International Criminal Court:
In response to tyrants like Saddam Hussein, the international community has established a permanent court that can try perpetrators of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, when their own countries cannot or will not. Now with 90 member countries, the ICC has jurisdiction over atrocities committed since July 1, 2002. Because the UN Security Council can refer a case to the ICC, even when the countries involved have not ratified the ICC treaty, the ICC can become an important diplomatic tool.
The Iraq War and the ICC:
Without a Security Council referral, the ICC has jurisdiction only over crimes committed on the soil of an ICC member state, or by a national of a member state, unless a country specifically accepts ICC jurisdiction over a situation. Because neither Iraq nor the United States has accepted the jurisdiction of the ICC, war crimes allegedly committed on Iraqi soil by U.S. or Iraqi citizens cannot be investigated or prosecuted by the Court without a Security Council referral.
U.S. allies, however, are members of the ICC, including all 15 European Union countries, 16 of our 18 fellow members of NATO, and all but one of the seven new NATO candidates. Leaders of these countries have placed themselves under the jurisdiction of the ICC. They are confident that allegations of systematic and widespread acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes can be handled by their domestic courts, thereby restricting the ICC's need and ability to pursue charges. Our allies have committed themselves to enforcing the most basic, minimum standards of human rights - shouldn't we?
(snip)
|