USA vs. ICC: President Donald Trump Authorizes Sanctions Against ICC Employees

Must Read

The Right to Information and its Working of 15 years

On 12th October 2020, RTI finished fifteen years since its commencement. The question remains whether the legislation stands up to...

An Insight into Custodial Death in India

“The occurrence of Custodial deaths in the world’s greatest democracy has raised the eyebrows of every citizen and shaken...

Implications in Travel Insurance in Light of the COVID-19 Crisis

As the world, today is crippled by this once in a century pandemic and as of date more than...

Second-Round Effects of Rent Control Laws: The Argentine Case

Introduction In colonial India, a city had an issue with its cobra population, which was a problem clearly in need...

Why Are the Big Techs of Silicon Valley Accused of Anti-Competitive Behaviours?

The big tech giants of the Silicon Valley are facing major challenges with relation to their monopolistic powers after...

KSK announces Sanjay Kumar as a Partner for Pharma & Life Sciences Practice

New Partner for KSK's Pharma & Life Sciences Practice King Stubb & Kasiva recently announced that Mr Sanjay Kumar has...

Follow us

President Donald Trump authorized U.S. economic and travel sanctions against International Criminal Court (ICC) employees. This comes at the wake of an ICC investigation into whether Afghan/Taliban/American forces committed war crimes in Afghanistan. 

Background 

Afghanistan was elevated as a significant U.S. foreign policy concern in 2001 after the 9/11 attacks. United States, led a military campaign against Al Qaeda and the Taliban government in Afghanistan that harbored and supported attacks of 9/11. According to UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) Report 2019, more than 100,000 Afghans have been killed or wounded since 2009. In February 2020, USA and the Taliban forces signed an agreement. It resulted in cease-fire and USA to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan in a year’s time. In March 2020, the Appeals Chamber of ICC gave Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda permission to proceed with investigation into alleged crimes committed in Afghanistan under the Rome Statute. The investigation entails:

  • The Taliban and affiliated groups for crimes against humanity and war crimes; 
  •  the Afghan National Security Forces for war crimes; and 
  •  the armed forces of the United States of America (the ‘United States’) and its Central Intelligence Agency (the ‘CIA’) for war crimes.

Charges

Under Article 5 of the Rome Statue, ICC has jurisdiction on crimes against humanity, genocide, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. On the basis of preliminary evidence, the office of the prosecutor believes that US Armed Forces and CIA have committed the war crimes of:

  1. Torture and cruel treatment (article 8(2)(c)(i)), 
  2. Outrages upon personal dignity (article 8(2)(c)(ii)) and
  3. Rape and other forms of sexual violence (article 8(2)(e)(vi)). 

Evidence shows that USAF and CIA carried out interrogation at various ‘black sites’ using inhumane methods including but not limited to ‘waterboarding’, hooding under special conditions, stress positions, isolation and sensory deprivation, exposure to extreme temperatures, prolonged sleep deprivation, food deprivation, ‘rectal rehydration’ etc. These techniques fall under Art. 8(2) (c)-3 and 8(2)(c)-3 of Elements of Crime. The torture inflicted was against persons who were ‘hors de combat’, or civilians taking no active part in the hostilities. 

The Trump administration has strongly opposed these charges. It has imposed sanctions on anyone connected with the investigation via an executive order. President Trump’s executive order introduces a national emergency in connection with a threat to US national security and foreign policy. It has denied the jurisdiction of ICC over US soldiers as USA has not ratified the Rome Statute. 

Issue of Jurisdiction 

On July 17, 1998, 120 nations voted to adopt the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute). 21 nations abstained from voting. Seven nations, including the United States, Israel, and China, opposed adoption of the Rome Statute. According to article 12 of the Statue ICC may exercise jurisdiction in a situation where crimes under Art. 5 were committed on or after 1 July 2002. Here, it says that, the State Party national committed the crimes, or in the territory of a State Party, or in a State that has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court. Afghanistan is a party to the Rome Statute and thus ICC has jurisdiction over crimes committed on its soil by USA. 

USA v. ICC

The United States opposed the Rome Statute. It had concerns about unfounded charges and politicized prosecution. USA has done everything it its power to undermine the authority of ICC like American Service-Members’ Protection Act (ASPA). The law prohibits US cooperation with the ICC. It gives the President the right to use any available means (even military force) to release persons detained or taken into custody by the International Criminal Court. 

Ironically, according to President Clinton himself USA had played a major role in building the Court. It had also helped in transfer and detention of ICC fugitives like Bosco Ntaganda & Domic Ongwen. Now when it is occasion for USA’s accountability, it has termed ICC as a kangaroo court, set out to breach the sovereignty of USA.

Conclusion

Founded on the principle of complementarity, ICC is intended to complement national criminal systems. It prosecutes cases only when States are unwilling or unable to do so genuinely. The ICC embodies the principle of individual accountability. The justices at Nuremberg said: “crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities. Trump Administration’s actions reveal the hypocritical nature of US when it comes to its own accountability. International entities including OHCHR, ICC; states like UK, Netherlands etc have condemned this action. USA had declared ‘war on terror’ back in 2011, without any intention of abiding by the laws of war. It is equally answerable to the victims, like all other states it has held answerable to itself. 


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour killing against her by her...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus as she claimed that her...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd v. ARG Outlier...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal annunciated various...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under Section 2(3) of the DMC...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -