About
Academics
Multisport
Photography
Writing
Home

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

www.adamhodges.com

The above the law mentality detailed in recently leaked memos has a well established track record in Bush administration policy. One of the clearest examples is the administration's dodging of the International Criminal Court's jurisdiction.

The administration's National Security Strategy of the United States, released in September 2002, articulates this well:

We will take the actions necessary to ensure that our efforts to meet our global security commitments and protect Americans are not impaired by the potential for investigations, inquiry, or prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC), whose jurisdiction does not extend to Americans and which we do not accept.

Indeed, on May 6, 2002, the Bush administration renounced the signature of the United States on the Rome Statute that established the court (signed during the Clinton administration) and then forced through a Security Council resolution to give US personnel immunity from its jurisdiction. To further ensure that US officials are beyond the reach of the court, the administration worked to pass the American Service-members' Protection Act, sardonically referred to as the "Hague Invasion Act" because it allows for the use of military force to free any US nationals held by the ICC in the Hague, Netherlands. To be triply sure, the administration has been working with signatories of the ICC to establish bilateral immunity agreements, also known as "Article 98" agreements after an article in the Rome Statute intended to cover pre-existing extradition agreements. As of May 2004, the US convinced, or otherwise coerced, 75 nations to sign such agreements.

Now the UN resolution granting US troops exemption from the ICC is up for extension. According to Human Rights Watch, "The current resolution up for renewal, Resolution 1487, grants immunity from ICC prosecution to personnel serving in UN authorized or approved operations if they are from states that have not ratified the ICC treaty, including the United States and Iraq."

In light of the recent abuse at Abu Ghraib and the systemic policy adopted by the administration with regard to treaties such as the Geneva Convention and its use of torture in the so called war on terror, countries around the world have been given much pause. Why should the world community acquiesce to US demands for immunity and let it be above the law?

Not surprisingly, Steve Crawshaw, London director of Human Rights Watch, said, "Opposition to the resolution is gaining momentum. Last year, three countries abstained from voting for the resolution, and this year that number will grow. The United Kingdom should not be on the wrong side of this vote."

Amnesty International echoed HRW's call for the UK to vote against the resolution, and for Blair to bring up the issue of torture at the G8 summit in the United States this week.

In response to the recent policy memos that outline the Bush administration's belief that it is above international law, AI's Neil Durkin states in a June 8 article in the Guardian that the "UN convention against torture, to which the US is a signatory, is very clear that there is no right of derogation. No state may decide it is no longer bound by the provisions of the convention, no matter what the circumstance. The arbitrary use of new 'legal advice' to say the US is not bound by the convention threatens to undermine the very credibility of international human rights law."

UN Resolution 1487 is valid until July. If the United States is successful in renewing it, it would be a case of hypocrisy trumping international law and democracy. If the international community says no to the US and makes it play by the same rules as everyone else, then it will be a step toward a world that respects international law above superpower hegemony.

Further reading: