12 June 2003
Cunningham Praises UNSC Vote Renewing ICC Immunity for Peacekeepers
(Says resolution addresses primary U.S. concern) (990)
The Security Council resolution exempting U.N. peacekeepers from
prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC) "is consistent
with the fundamental principle of international law," U.S. Ambassador
James Cunningham said June 12.
In a speech to the Security Council, Cunningham, the deputy U.S.
representative to the U.N., said that "a primary concern" of the
United States is that Americans may find themselves subject to ICC
jurisdiction even though the United States is not a party to the Rome
Statute.
The Security Council adopted a resolution renewing immunity for U.N.
peacekeepers from prosecution for war crimes by the new International
Criminal Court (ICC) for another year. The resolution was first passed
in July 2002 to ensure that persons from countries that do not
recognize the ICC and who participate in U.N. peacekeeping operations
will not be subject to the court's jurisdiction.
The United States "has a fundamental objection to the ICC," Cunningham
said. "In our view it is a fatally flawed institution."
"This resolution represents a compromise that respects the strongly
held views of those who support the ICC and the equally strongly held
views of those that do not. Such respect is important to maintain," he
said.
Following is the transcript of the ambassador's remarks:
(begin transcript)
Mr. President, we welcome the Security Council's renewal for another
year of the compromise on the International Criminal Court so
painstakingly put together in Resolution 1422. Like any compromise,
the resolution does not address all of our concerns about the Court.
It does balance divergent positions and help ensure against any
undermining of U.N. peace operations.
Like Resolution 1422, this resolution exempts states that are not
parties to the Rome Statute but participate in U.N. operations from
the ICC's jurisdiction in a manner consistent with the U.N. Charter
and with the 1998 Rome Statute. The resolution is consistent with the
fundamental principle of international law, the need for a state to
consent if it is to be bound, is respected by exempting from ICC
jurisdiction personnel and forces of states that are not parties to
the Rome Statute. It is worth noting that the resolution does not in
any way affect parties to the Court, nor the Rome Statute itself. Nor
does it, as some today suggested, elevate an entire category of people
above the law. The ICC is not "the law."
The provisions of this resolution are as relevant and necessary today
as Resolution 1422 was a year ago. We all know that U.N. operations
are important if the Council is to discharge its primary
responsibility for maintaining or restoring international peace and
security. We also all know that it is not always easy to recruit
contributors and that it often takes courage on the part of political
leaders to join military operations established or authorized by this
Council. It is important that Member States not add concern about ICC
jurisdiction to the difficulty of participating.
We have heard the arguments that this resolution is not necessary, and
we do not agree. I would suggest that even one instance of the ICC
attempting to exercise jurisdiction over those involved in a U.N.
operation would have a seriously damaging impact on future U.N.
operations. We are disappointed, of course, that not every Council
Member shares our view. But we are not at all persuaded that our
concerns are overstated or lack validity.
The United States yields to no country its historical leadership in
the struggle for international justice and accountability for war
crimes. After all, the United States was the first country to codify
the laws of war -- international humanitarian law -- and an original
participant in the creation of every successful international effort
to date to adjudicate allegations of war crimes and crimes against
humanity. It has been and will continue to be a strong supporter of
the tribunals established under the aegis of this Council. But unlike
the ICC, those tribunals are accountable to the Security Council.
The ICC is not a U.N. institution and, some would even say, challenges
and weakens the U.N. Charter system and the Council's place in it. The
ICC is vulnerable at each stage of any proceeding to politicization.
The Rome Statute provides no adequate check. "Having every confidence"
in the ICC's correct behavior, however that is defined, is not in our
view a safeguard. We have already seen in other fora the potential for
politically motivated criminal charges against national leaders and
military officers, including over the recent Iraq hostilities.
Our primary concern, of course, is for American personnel that may
find themselves subject to ICC jurisdiction even though the United
States is not a party to the Rome Statute. As Ambassador Negroponte
explained last year, "the power to deprive a citizen of his or her
freedom is an awesome thing, which the American people have entrusted
to their government under the rules of our democracy.... [T]he
International Criminal Court does not operate in the same democratic
and constitutional context, and therefore does not have the right to
deprive Americans of their freedom."
The United States, therefore, has a fundamental objection to the ICC.
In our view, it is a fatally flawed institution. Many others,
including some of our closest friends, do not share that view. We are
thoroughly familiar with our respective positions and understand that
those positions are not going to change in the foreseeable future. We
all need to acknowledge that fact and its implications. This
resolution represents a compromise that respects the strongly held
views of those who support the ICC and the equally strongly held views
of those that do not. Such respect is important to maintain. This
compromise, therefore, is important to maintain.
Thank you, Mr. President.
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
