Bilateral Immunity Agreements Article 98

The Bush administration has waged a vigorous campaign to close BIAs to remove U.S. citizens from the court of law. By the end of his term, the Bush administration had concluded with more than 100 nations, the last with Montenegro on April 19, 2007. The government has asserted that these agreements meet the requirements of Article 98, paragraph 2 of the Rome Statute of the ICC: in capitals around the world, US government officials are seeking bilateral immunity, or so-called “Article 98” agreements, to protect US citizens from prosecution by the New International Criminal Court (ICC). These bilateral agreements, known as the “impunity agreement” by leading legal experts, provide that neither party to the agreement places current or former government officials of other personnel, the army or any other personnel (whether or not they are nationals of the State concerned) before the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice. A: States that sign these agreements would violate their obligations under the Rome Statute, the Vienna Convention on Treaty Law and possibly their own extradition laws. In particular, states parties to the Rome Statute that sign these conventions violate Articles 27, 86, 87, 89 and 90 of the Statute, which require States to cooperate and support the Court. These States also violate Article 18 of the Rome Convention, which obliges them to refrain from any action that would annihilate the purpose and purpose of the statute. After all, many states will likely violate their own extradition laws if they sign such agreements, since states generally have far more power to authorize the extradition and extradition of persons than would be permitted by the bilateral immunity agreements proposed by the United States. On the other hand, the bilateral immunity agreements proposed by the United States seek to obtain immunity from a large group of people, without reference to the traditional relations between CANAPÉ and SOMA. This broad layer of people would include anyone found in the territory of the state who enters into the agreement with the United States and who works or has worked for the U.S. government. Government experts said this could also include non-Americans and include citizens of the state in which they are located, effectively preventing that state from taking responsibility for its own citizens.

In early 2006, the Bush administration appeared divided on whether U.S. aid should continue to be tied by the Article 98 agreements. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice acknowledged that the invocation of ASPA sanctions against important U.S. military allies could “shoot in the foot in the same way as ourselves” and that exceptions to military assistance were being considered on a case-by-case basis.14 In addition, the Department of Defense`s Quadrennial Defense Review called for a possible decoupling of military training programs. Although the Department of Defense, and in particular the United States

CategoriesUncategorized