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

Must Read

What is the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016?

The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“RERA”) is an Act of the Parliament. It seeks to protect...

Should the Exorbitant Amounts Charged for RT-PCR Tests be Refunded?

Introduction A plea has been filed in the Honourable Supreme Court of India seeking a refund of exorbitant amounts charged...

Should CCTV’s be Installed in the Police Station?

Introduction In a recent judgment, the bench led by Justice Nariman issued directions to both the state and Union Territory...

A Legal Analysis of the West Bengal Political Crisis on IPS Deputation

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has recently summoned three IPS officers of West Bengal (WB). The decision was...

Explained: Postal Ballot for NRIs

At the end of November 2020, Election Commission sent a proposal to the law ministry to amend the Representation...

Explained: Constitutional Provisions and Legislations With Regards to a Person with Disabilities

The world celebrates December 3 as International Day of Persons with Disabilities (IDPD). This day is also called World...

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

Police To Decide on the Entry of Farmers To Delhi on Republic Day Says Supreme Court

While the Supreme Court heard a plea seeking an injunction against the tractor rally that is scheduled for January 26th, it held that it is the decision of the Delhi Police officers to see whether the protesting farmers should get entry into Delhi on Republic Day.

[Sushant Singh Rajput Case]: Republic TV & Times Now Hindered Investigation Probe Says Bombay HC

In November last year, the Court had reserved its judgement on the PILs that came from 8 former police officers from Maharashtra, lawyers, activists and NGOs, seeking restraining orders against the media trial in the Sushant Singh Rajput case.

Women Advocates Move To Supreme Court Against the Delhi HC Orders on Resuming Physical Hearing

Another writ petition has been filed by women advocates in the Supreme Court against the decision of the Delhi HC of directing the expansion of physical hearing of cases within the National Capital Territory of Delhi without giving an option to litigants to be represented by their lawyers virtually.

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the provisions of Section 497 (6)...

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus. The petition sought to direct...

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that the petitioners were entitled to...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there is no requirement of passing...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the provisions of Section 497 (6)...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -