Open AccessThe measures against the International Criminal Court (USA v. ICC): the perspective of International Law
Author(s) -
Walid Fahmy
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
vestnik rossijskogo universiteta družby narodov. seriâ ûridičeskie nauki
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2408-9001
pISSN - 2313-2337
DOI - 10.22363/2313-2337-2021-25-1-309-332
Subject(s) - law , political science , jurisdiction , statute , treaty , international law , criminal jurisdiction , rome statute of the international criminal court , statute of limitations , universal jurisdiction
Since its creation, the International Criminal Court has faced the refusal of the United States to cooperate, which, in addition to staying outside the Rome Statute, has undertaken a real strategy of weakening the Criminal Code. The argument put forward by the US Government against the Rome Statute is that an international treaty cannot create obligations for a non-party state and therefore the United States denies any jurisdiction of that jurisdiction over its nationals. As early as 2000, that country had unsuccessfully introduced a proposal before the Preparatory Commission to prevent bringing American military personnel to the Court. The American Service Members Protection Act (ASPA), bilateral immunity agreements and Security Council resolutions constitute the arsenal used by States at that time to neutralize the ICC. Recently, the United States signed an order authorizing the United States to prevent and penalize employees of the International Criminal Court from entering the country. The US administration, which has been critical of the ICC for months, is opposed to launching investigation into war crimes in Afghanistan. Is not that a sign of difficulty with the US Legal Justifications? In other words, does this weakness open up the possibility of prosecution in the event of a violation of international law by US?