Following investigations into possible war crimes perpetrated by USA forces and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in Afghanistan dating back to 2003, the USA has imposed sanctions on two officials from the International Criminal Court (ICC). These sanctions include asset freezes and visa bans.
USA’s Unwavering Stance Against the ICC
The USA not only sanctioned these officials but also ardently criticized the ICC, perceiving it as a threat to its own sovereignty. The country therefore implemented stringent punitive measures typically reserved for terror groups and human rights abusers. Reflecting their position, the USA refrained from ratifying the “Rome Statute” that created the ICC in 1998, subsequently exempting itself from its rulings. In additional condemnation, the USA administration referred to the ICC as a “thoroughly broken and corrupted institution”.
ICC’s Resistance to the USA’s Sanctions
The ICC views these sanctions as an inappropriate attempt to undermine the law and interfere with the court’s proceedings. It maintains unwavering support for its staff and officials, and continues to independently and impartially carry out its Rome Statute mandate.
Criticism Surrounding the USA’s Actions
The USA’s decision has drawn criticism from numerous international bodies, including the United Nations, the European Union, ten members of the UN Security Council such as UK and France, and a variety of global human rights agencies. They all urged the USA to reverse its sanctions. Moreover, Human Rights Watch asserted that USA, by penalizing war crime investigators, is effectively siding with those responsible for and covering up human rights abuses.
About the International Criminal Court
The ICC is an international tribunal and intergovernmental organization, sitting in The Hague, Netherlands. Formed after the inefficacy of ad hoc tribunals to handle Rwanda’s war crimes, the ICC prosecutes individuals for international crimes, such as genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Notably, the court only exercises jurisdiction when a state’s legal system collapses or if the government commits heinous crimes. Therefore, it serves as a court of last resort.
USA’s Complex Relationship with the ICC
Although part of the founding movement to establish the ICC for trying cases of genocide and war crimes, the USA chose not to ratify the statute in 2002 over concerns of political misuse against its nationals. Countries like Russia, China, and India also never supported or signed onto the Rome Statute or ICC.
India’s Stand Against the ICC
India, a non-ICC member, had several objections to the Rome Statute. It took issue with the ICC’s self-asserted right to prosecute non-signatory countries, the ICC’s subordination to the UN Security Council (UNSC) which provides permanent members uncontrolled powers, and the exclusion of cross-border terror, nuclear arms use, and weapons of mass destruction from ICC investigations.
The Way Ahead
While countries like India share USA’s apprehensions about the ICC, USA’s sanctions are seen as a blow to multilateralism. Recently, it withdrew from various UN agencies and international agreements, including UNESCO, the Human Rights Council, the Paris climate change agreement, and the Iran nuclear accord. Particularly as the USA accuses China of infringing upon international norms and human rights in areas like South China Sea, Xinjiang, and Tibet, this pushback against ICC’s case in Afghanistan appears counterproductive. Guaranteeing the ICC’s independence and non-interference is critical to ensure unbiased decision-making. Furthermore, an independent review of its own operations seems necessary.
