Bilateral Immunity Agreement

The agreements envisaged by the United States are not just about the execution of official operations. They apply to any variety of people who may, at any time, be in the territory of one of the parties for any purpose. This is why the Rome Statute does not allow these agreements and, by their respect, countries will violate their obligations to the Court of Justice under the Rome Statute. 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 16 April 2003, 27 countries reportedly signed bilateral US immunity agreements: Romania, Israel, East Timor, Marshall Islands, Tajikistan, Dominican Republic, Palau, Mauritania, Uzbekistan, Honduras, Afghanistan, Micronesia, Gambia, El Salvador, Sri Lanka, India, Nepal, Djibouti, Bahrain, Tuvalu, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Nauru, Democratic Republic of Congo, National legislation in many of these countries requires that the agreement be ratified by Parliament before becoming binding. Several countries, including members of the European Union, have conducted legal analyses of these agreements and concluded that the proposed agreements are contrary to international law.

A: Reports indicate that many countries around the world, including close allies of the U.S. government, those seeking to become NATO members, and those in the Middle East and South Asia, have been targeted and under extreme pressure to sign. John Bolton, U.S. Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, said recently: “Based on Article 98 of the Rome Statute, we negotiate bilateral and legally binding agreements with individual contracting states to protect our citizens from being handed over to the Court. Our negotiators have had bilateral discussions with several EU countries. (and) several countries in the Middle East and South Asia. Our primary objective is to conclude agreements with every country in the world, in accordance with Article 98, whether they have signed or ratified the ICC, whether they intend to do so in the future. Since January 2019[update], 123 states have been members of the Court. [3] The other states that are not parties to the Rome Statute are India, Indonesia and China. [3] On 6 May 2002, the United States, in a position shared with Israel and Sudan, withdrew its signature and declared that it had no intention of ratifying the agreement.

[3] The Court cannot pursue an application for surrender that would require the required state to act in contradiction with its obligations under international agreements requiring the authorization of a sending state to surrender to the Court a person from that state, unless the Court may, in the first place, seek the cooperation of the sending state for the granting of consent to the surrender.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.