US links peacekeeping to ICC - No assistances without exempt

[vox]

U.S. Links Peacekeeping to Immunity From New Court
By SERGE SCHMEMANN


UNITED NATIONS, June 18 — Further toughening a stance that has irritated even its allies, the United States warned today that Americans would not take part in United Nations peacekeeping missions unless the Security Council granted them immunity from prosecution by a new global criminal court.

Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/19/international/19NATI.html?ex=1025495226&ei=1&en=0f60d755ae756643)

One of my favorite parts of the article:

Reports that the administration is preparing a military doctrine of pre-emptive armed intervention has intensified complaints that the United States perceives two sets of rules in the world, one for itself, and one for everybody else. "What member states find most irritating is this perennial argument that the United States is a special case, that rules are for everybody else," one diplomat said. "Even close friends are very, very nervous. This is really a serious assault on the international legal order."

vox

[Fabi]

hey vox, keep up the good work... it's a pleasure to get the news through che-lives... ;)

[Edelweiss]

Quote: from Fabi on 7:27 pm on June 19, 2002
hey vox, keep up the good work... it's a pleasure to get the news through che-lives... ;)

I agree, thanks a lot, vox!

[Angie]

The Australian government has just announced that it will ratify the ICC, but will force the ICC to exempt Australian peacekeepers from being brought to trial for any future crimes against humanity they may commit. Arseholes.

What I want to know is why the hell are we having this Court if all the countries are just going to start demanding their exemption from it's reach?

My belief is that if you commit a crime against humanity, you're going down for it. I don't give a fuck what your excuse is.

[Nickademus]

Quote: from Angie on 12:04 pm on June 20, 2002
The Australian government has just announced that it will ratify the ICC, but will force the ICC to exempt Australian peacekeepers from being brought to trial for any future crimes against humanity they may commit. Arseholes.

What I want to know is why the hell are we having this Court if all the countries are just going to start demanding their exemption from it's reach?

My belief is that if you commit a crime against humanity, you're going down for it. I don't give a fuck what your excuse is.

First of all, there can be mo exemptions from the ICC. Normally when a country ratifies an international convention or treaty it can make reservations (i.e. that peacekeepers be exempt). In the ICC statute, however, these reservations are strictly forbidden. Thus, if Australia tries to ratify the statute but asks for such an exemption, that ratification will not be accepted and Australia will not be considered a party to the ICC.

The way the US is doing it, unfortunately is quite a sound way. Although you are forced to give peacekeeping troops to the UN if so asked, since the US sits on the SC, they can simply veto any decision to send in peacekeeping troops if their soldiers will be going. Bloody Americans.

The only way that peacekeepers can be made exempt from the ICC (as far as I know) is in 7 years. There is a provision in the statute that allows for amendments to the statute (including the addition of the crime of aggression) but only 7 years after the statute comes into force.

Interestingly though, the work that peacekeeping troops are suppossed to be doing will not subject them to any of the crimes listed in the ICC statute. If the US and Australia are so worried about their peacekeepers then there is something wrong with what their peacekeepers are doing.

And besides all that, the ICC statute allows for countries to prosecute before the ICC will. The simplest way to avoid the ICC is for the country to simply try their own peacekeepers....but hey if they are truely simply peackeeping there is nothing to worry about.

what the hell is wrong witht he US an Australia?