01 July 2002
U.S. Rejects ICC Jurisdiction over Its Peacekeepers
(Reluctantly vetoes extension of UN Bosnia Mission) (1170)
United Nations -- The United States vetoed the six-month extension of
the UN's Bosnia mission "with great reluctance," but U.S. concerns
about the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) over
U.S. peacekeepers is uncompromising, U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte
said June 30.
In a speech to the Security Council, Negroponte said, "the United
States has contributed -- and will continue to contribute -- to
maintaining peace and security in the Balkans and around the globe.
Contributing personnel to peacekeeping efforts demonstrates a
commitment to international peace and security that, as you all know,
can involve hardship and danger to those involved in peacekeeping."
"Having accepted these risks, by exposing people to dangerous and
difficult situations in the service of promoting peace and stability,
we will not ask them to accept the additional risk of politicized
prosecutions before a court whose jurisdiction over our people the
government of the United States does not accept," the ambassador said.
The United States vetoed a resolution that would have extended the UN
Mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina until the end of the year after
negotiating intensely, but unsuccessfully, at UN headquarters and in
the capitals of the other 14 members of the Security Council to add a
provision that would exempt the nationals of countries who are not
party to the ICC from the court's jurisdiction. The vote was 13 in
favor, with the United States against and Bulgaria abstaining.
The council then adopted unanimously a resolution extending the
mission until July 3 to allow for more negotiations and planning for a
wind down of the mission.
The problem must be resolved, Negroponte said, in a way that takes
into account "two hard facts: the United States wants to participate
in international peacekeeping; but the United States, a major
guarantor of peace and security around the globe and a founding member
of the United Nations, does not and will not accept the jurisdiction
of the ICC over peacekeepers that it contributed to UN-established and
-authorized operations."
Following is the text of the ambassador's remarks:
(begin text)
The longstanding commitment of the United States to peace and
stability in the Balkans is beyond question. We have also been clear
and consistent about our concerns on the ICC, in particular the need
to ensure our national jurisdiction over our personnel and officials
involved in UN peacekeeping and coalition-of-the-willing operations.
As you are well aware, this is not the first time we have raised this
issue in the council. I explained these concerns when we dealt with
UNMISET (UN Mission of Support in East Timor) in May. The United
States voted in favor of the East Timor resolution with the
expectation that the council would address our concerns before the ICC
came into effect July 1. In East Timor only three U.S. soldiers
participate in the UN peacekeeping mission; we intend to withdraw them
absent a solution to the ICC issue.
It is with great regret that the United States finds itself on the eve
of that date, despite our best efforts, without a solution.
The United States has contributed -- and will continue to contribute
-- to maintaining peace and security in the Balkans and around the
globe. Contributing personnel to peacekeeping efforts demonstrates a
commitment to international peace and security that, as you all know,
can involve hardship and danger to those involved in peacekeeping.
Having accepted these risks, by exposing people to dangerous and
difficult situations in the service of promoting peace and stability,
we will not ask them to accept the additional risk of politicized
prosecutions before a court whose jurisdiction over our people the
government of the United States does not accept.
Some contend that our concerns are unwarranted. With our global
responsibilities, we are and will remain a special target and cannot
have our decisions second-guessed by a court whose jurisdiction we do
not recognize.
With the court coming into being, this problem must be resolved -- but
in a way that takes account of two hard facts: the United States wants
to participate [in] international peacekeeping; but the United States,
a major guarantor of peace and security around the globe and a
founding member of the United Nations, does not and will not accept
the jurisdiction of the ICC over the peacekeepers that it contributes
to UN-established and -authorized operations.
The failure of the Security Council to act to preserve an appropriate
legal status for the U.S. and other non-ICC party peacekeepers can
only end in damage to international peacekeeping generally.
None of this is of our making.
We have offered a practical solution to this problem that would
preserve everyone's interests, protect international peacekeeping, and
strengthen the hand of this Council to maintain international peace
and security.
We have scrupulously sought to find a way forward that is both
consistent with others' obligations to the Rome Treaty and with UN
peacekeeping practice. Furthermore, we have accepted the principle
that this solution should apply only to states not party to the ICC.
Let me repeat: There is no inherent reason why states that have signed
or even ratified the Rome Treaty cannot also support our proposed
solution.
Our proposal calls for establishment of immunity for UN peacekeeping.
It builds on immunities that are already recognized in the UN system
and reflected in SOMAs (Status of Mission Agreements). The Rome Treaty
itself recognized the concept of immunity. If the Security Council
decides that its ability to maintain international peace and security
will be enhanced by providing immunity to UN peacekeeping, it may
provide such immunity. The framers of the ICC Treaty surely could not
limit the authority of the Security Council in this regard. The
consequence of providing UN peacekeepers with such immunity would be
the creation of a legal obligation on States to observe that immunity.
Pursuant to Article 98 of the ICC Treaty, the compliance of ICC
parties with such obligations is entirely consistent with the Treaty.
It strikes us as more than perplexing that others who are parties to
the ICC can use the provision of the treaty to exempt their forces for
an extended period from the purview of the court for war crimes and
then suggest that our attempt to use other provisions of the treaty
similarly to provide protection for our forces either violates their
treaty obligations or does unacceptable damage to the spirit of the
treaty.
The United States has voted against this resolution with great
reluctance. This decision is not directed at the people of Bosnia. We
will stand by them and by our commitment to peace and stability in the
Balkans. The fact that we are vetoing this resolution in the face of
that commitment, however, is an indication of just how serious our
concerns remain about the risks to our peacekeepers.
(end text)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
