scholarly journals The Trump Administration Revokes the ICC Prosecutor's U.S. Visa Shortly Before the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber Declines to Authorize an Investigation into War Crimes in Afghanistan

2019 ◽  
Vol 113 (3) ◽  
pp. 625-630
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
The United States ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
Trump Administration

On April 4, 2019, the United States revoked the visa of Fatou Bensouda, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC). This action occurred less than a month after Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that, except to the extent otherwise required by the UN Headquarters Agreement, the United States would impose visa restrictions on “those individuals directly responsible for any ICC investigation of U.S. personnel.” In her preliminary investigation into the situation in Afghanistan, Bensouda had specifically listed war crimes by U.S. military and intelligence agencies as one of several categories of crimes that her office found reason to believe had occurred. Approximately one week after Bensouda's visa revocation, the ICC's Pre-Trial Chamber (PTC) denied her request to move forward with an investigation of the situation in Afghanistan.

scholarly journals United States Imposes Economic Sanctions and Visa Restrictions on International Criminal Court Officials

2021 ◽  
Vol 115 (1) ◽  
pp. 138-140
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Economic Sanctions ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Justice ◽  
Executive Order ◽  
Trump Administration

On September 2, 2020, the Trump administration announced that the United States had added the International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, and the head of the Office of the Prosecutor's Jurisdiction, Complementarity, and Cooperation Division, Phakiso Mochochoko, to the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons. The action followed Executive Order 13,928, signed in June, which authorized economic sanctions and visa restrictions on ICC employees who are investigating whether U.S. forces committed war crimes in Afghanistan. Governments and human rights groups decried the sanctions as an attack on international justice.

scholarly journals Trump Administration Expresses Strong Disapproval of the International Criminal Court

2019 ◽  
Vol 113 (1) ◽  
pp. 169-173
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
National Security ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Intelligence Agencies ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Trump Administration

On September 10, 2018, U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton delivered an address fiercely criticizing the International Criminal Court (ICC). Bolton challenged the legitimacy of the ICC and expressed particular concern over its inquiry into potential war crimes committed by members of the U.S. military and intelligence agencies in Afghanistan. He identified retaliatory measures the United States would undertake if the ICC “comes after us, Israel or other U.S. allies.”

Executive Order 13928 on Blocking Property of Certain Persons Associated with the International Criminal Court

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Beth Van Schaack
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Legal Person ◽  
Executive Order ◽  
Aggressive Action ◽  
Blocking Property ◽  
Trump Administration

On June 11, 2020, President Donald J. Trump issued Executive Order 13928 Blocking Property of Certain Persons Associated with the International Criminal Court under the authority vested in him by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and other federal statutes. Although the Trump Administration had earlier threatened aggressive action against the International Criminal Court (ICC), the issuance of the E.O. followed a ruling by the ICC Appeals Chamber authorizing the Prosecutor to commence an investigation into the situation in Afghanistan, which might implicate U.S. persons. The E.O. declared the ICC's “illegitimate assertion of jurisdiction” over U.S. personnel and the personnel of “certain of its allies” to be “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States” within the meaning of IEEPA. It is a sweeping measure, blocking all property within the United States owned by designated natural or legal person (section 1); barring any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services to, or for the benefit of, designated persons (section 3), including even the donation of food, clothing, or medicine (section 2). The E.O. also authorized the imposition of certain immigration restrictions, including suspension of entry into the United States of ICC officials and their immediate family members (Section 4).

International Criminal Court Prosecutor Recommends Investigation of Potential War Crimes in Afghanistan, Including Actions by U.S. Military and Central Intelligence Agency

2017 ◽  
Vol 111 (2) ◽  
pp. 517-523
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Annual Report ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
The United States ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Central Intelligence Agency ◽  
Intelligence Agency ◽  
Preliminary Examination

On November 14, 2016, the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) of the International Criminal Court (ICC) released its annual Report on Preliminary Examination Activities (the Report). The Report contained the OTP's updates on preliminary examinations of several situations, including in Afghanistan. Of particular note, the OTP announced that it had identified a reasonable basis to seek Pre-Trial Chamber authorization for an investigation into allegations of war crimes committed by the United States—primarily from 2003 to 2004, but in some cases as recently as December 2014.

Does the United States Really Prosecute Its Service Members for War Crimes? Implications for Complementarity before the International Criminal Court

2008 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 165-183
Author(s):  
THOMAS WAYDE PITTMAN ◽  
MATTHEW HEAPHY
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Service Members

AbstractThis article addresses the prosecution of service members by the United States for the commission of war crimes, specifically whether or not the offences charged in such cases can truly be considered ‘war crimes’. The answer has implications in terms of application of the complementarity provision of the Rome Statute, as well as the stigmatic effect that is avoided when the United States prosecutes ordinary criminal offences rather than war crimes.

scholarly journals Managing Frozen Assets at the International Criminal Court

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 765-790
Author(s):  
Daley J Birkett
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
The Hague

Abstract On 8 June 2018, more than 10 years after his arrest, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) reversed Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo’s conviction by the Trial Chamber for crimes against humanity and war crimes, acquitting him of all charges. Soon after the start of his time in detention in The Hague, assets belonging to Bemba were frozen by states across a number of jurisdictions at the request of the ICC. Many of these assets remain frozen, more than 18 months after his acquittal. This article examines the consequences of prolonged asset freezes by the ICC through the lens of the Bemba case, demonstrating the existence of gaps in the legal framework applicable to the management of frozen assets under the ICC Statute system and suggesting possible responses thereto at the domestic and international levels.

The United States, the International Criminal Court, and Afghanistan: The Rupturing of Mutual Accommodation

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (6) ◽  
pp. 1068-1107
Author(s):  
Kevin S. Robb ◽  
Shan Patel
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
National Security ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Strategic Approach ◽  
Chief Prosecutor ◽  
The U.S

Abstract In September 2018, then U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton delivered a speech that ushered in a new, more aggressive era of U.S. foreign policy vis-à-vis the International Criminal Court (icc). Washington’s disapprobation over the icc’s interest in the alleged crimes of U.S. personnel in Afghanistan has been seen as the cause for this change. While this is certainly partly true, little attention has been paid to Fatou Bensouda’s prosecutorial behaviour as an explanatory factor. Using the framework from David Bosco’s Rough Justice, this article demonstrates that a distinct shift in prosecutorial behaviour occurred when Fatou Bensouda took over as Chief Prosecutor. In contrast to Luis Moreno Ocampo’s strategic approach, avoidant of U.S. interests, Bensouda’s apolitical approach directly challenged the U.S. This shift in prosecutorial behaviour ruptured the ‘mutual accommodation’ that previously characterised the icc-U.S. relationship and, in turn, produced the shift in U.S. policy that now marginalises the Court.

The United States and the International Criminal Court: Avoiding Jurisdiction Through Bilateral Agreements in Reliance on Article 98

2008 ◽  
Vol 8 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 1-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Attila Bogdan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Legislative History ◽  
Bilateral Agreements ◽  
General Obligation ◽  
History Of ◽  
Treaty Interpretation

AbstractState-parties to the International Criminal Court Statute have a general obligation to cooperate with the Court. The duty to cooperate represents the functional cornerstone of the Court's existence. A narrow exception to this duty is contained in Article 98 of the Statute, which provides for limited circumstances in which the Court must refrain from seeking a surrender of an individual to the Court. Following rules of treaty interpretation, as well as an examination of the legislative history of the ICC Statute, the article explores the scope of Article 98, the provision the United States relied on in concluding a series of bilateral agreements that are primarily aimed at preventing the surrender of any U.S. nationals to the ICC. The article considers the issue of what impact, if any, the agreements have in the context of extradition, and the U.S.' legal ability to fulfill the commitments made in the "Article 98" agreements.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document