After the bloody attacks on Rafa, there are increasing calls for an arrest warrant for Netanyahu and his entourage by the International Criminal Court. But the US is threatening sanctions in that case. Former ICC staffer Andrea Furger sees a pattern: Washington supports the court only when it serves US interests.
Last week, the International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor issued an arrest warrant requested Three Hamas leaders, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, for their role in the ongoing conflict in Gaza.
America, Israel’s main ally, responded immediately. President Joe Biden guilty He accused the ICC of the prosecutor’s move as “reprehensible” and suggesting a false moral equivalence between Hamas and Israel.
While it’s not yet clear whether ICC judges will actually issue arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant, the Biden administration has already sent the U.S. Sanctions against officials ICC
A year ago, U.S. officials praised the court when it issued arrest warrants for Russian President Vladimir Putin and another Russian official for alleged crimes in the war in Ukraine. Biden welcomed the decision and noted it “Justified”.
Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the United States has continued to support the ICC. Beth Van Schaak, US Ambassador for Global Criminal Justice, said The ICC “occupies an important place in the ecosystem of international justice.”
America’s apparent shift when the court targets its ally is nothing new. She was not surprised either.
Rather, the tumultuous attitude explains the United States’ complicated relationship with the ICC since its establishment in 1998. And the officers of the court were undoubtedly prepared for this hostile response.
Desperate from the start
I worked for many years as a consultant in the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC. During that time, Washington’s position towards the court changed several times – at one moment the US supported the court, at other times it criticized it.
It largely depends on US foreign policy objectives and the expected costs and benefits that support for the court might bring.
Initially, the United States was a strong supporter of establishing a permanent International Criminal Court. In the 1990s they actively participated in the ICC Treaty negotiations.
But ultimately the country voted against Law of RomeInternational treaty establishing the court in 1998. The U.S. feared that the court could prosecute U.S. citizens without U.S. consent.
Initially, the United States signed the Rome Statute, but President George W. Bush withdrew the signature Later on. He said the US would not ratify it and had no legal obligations to do so.
The United States remains a non-member of the ICC to this day.
American laws
When the ICC was established, Washington enacted laws to limit interactions with the new court. The American Servicemembers’ Protection Act of 2002 (ASPA) is particularly important Illegal The ICC should be supported in any way possible.
The law allowed the US president to use “all necessary means” – meaning “including the armed forces” – to free any US officials or military personnel who were ever prosecuted in The Hague, where the ICC sits. This earned the law its nickname “Hack Invasion Act” On that day.
However, that same year, a change in law was passed that allowed the United States to assist international tribunals in trying Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, Osama bin Laden, other members of Al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad leaders, and other foreign nationals.
The amendment created significant flexibility, demonstrating that the United States is willing to support international justice proceedings as long as they target American “adversaries” or other foreign nationals.
American support in African affairs
The United States soon adopted a pragmatic approach to the court. They supported the court depending on the circumstances and their own interests.
In 2005, Washington was one Recommendation of the UN Security Council To the ICC on possible genocide and war crimes in Darfur, Sudan. The conflict was one of the highest priorities in US foreign policy in Africa at the time.
Then the Obama administration took over Formal Adopts a “case by case assessment” strategy based on cooperation with the ICC. The most important criterion is whether or not the aid serves US interests.
Under this strategy, the United States played a key role Note on ICC Crimes against humanity and war crimes committed in Libya in 2011. This was again in line with US foreign interests.
American diplomats provided key support in the arrest of Congolese warlord Bosco Nganda, who was later indicted by the ICC. Sentenced Up to 30 years in prison for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The United States helped arrest Dominic Ongwen of the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda, who was later sentenced to 25 years in prison. Sentenced.
Conflict over Afghanistan
But relations between the US and the court have soured again during Donald Trump’s tenure
This is due to developments in the ICC’s investigation Crime in Afghanistan. It was First time The court investigated possible crimes by American soldiers.
In 2020 Approved ICC judges try US, Afghan and Taliban forces. A little later the United States imposed Obstacles to ICC lawyer Fatou Bensouda and another senior ICC official
After some delays, that investigation has now resumed continued, focuses only on crimes allegedly committed by the Taliban and the Islamic State in Khorasan. Other aspects of research include “Non-priority”, an implicit reference to the US and its allies.
Shortly after taking office Raised the Biden administration Sanctions against ICC officials suggest renewed cooperation in US-ICC relations.
The bond became closer after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Even America took it New laws Expanded the possibility of cooperation with the court. American interests and the ICC seemed to be aligned once again, at least temporarily.
But last week’s request for arrest warrants against Israeli leaders signaled another shift in US attitudes toward the court. Prioritizing its own foreign policy goals over international criminal justice, it continues to favor the United States when the court sees fit.
–
Andrea Furger served as Cooperation Counselor at the International Criminal Court in The Hague and is currently a Researcher and Professor of International Law at the University of Melbourne.
“Passionate analyst. Thinker. Devoted twitter evangelist. Wannabe music specialist.”
More Stories
From Concept to Creation: Designing Your Signature Acrylic Nails
How to Care for Your Marginated Tortoise Year-Round
Biden and Xi want to sit down one last time