Us Bilateral Immunity Agreements

The Court cannot make an application for surrender that would require the required state to act in contradiction with its obligations under international agreements requiring a sending state to surrender a person to the Court, unless the Court of Justice can first request the cooperation of the sending state to give its consent to the surrender. While many people feel that Article 98, paragraph 2, was designed by the United States to create a loophole in the ICC`s jurisdiction, it has indeed arose from the concerns of many States that their existing obligations arising from transfer agreements, in particular the status of the armed forces or the status of mission agreements, , could conflict with their obligation to cooperate with the ICC. That is why Section 98, paragraph 2, was developed in parallel with Article 98, paragraph 1, which deals with conflicts between the Rome Statute and diplomatic immunity, in order to resolve potential conflicts in other situations where individuals have entered the territory of a State in official American affairs, whether as a result of a SOFA, a SOMA or perhaps even an extradition agreement. The Bush administration has waged a vigorous campaign to close BIAs to remove U.S. citizens from the court of law. By the end of his term, the Bush administration had concluded with more than 100 nations, the last with Montenegro on April 19, 2007. The administration asserted that these agreements met the requirements of Article 98, paragraph 2 of the Rome Statute of the ICC: the agreements envisaged by the United States were not only related to the conduct 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. Researchers are often interested in whether there is an immunity agreement between the United States and another country. This guide lists the Article 98 agreements in existing contracts and all the additional agreements published in the latest edition of the treaty measures. The full text of the agreements was published by the U.S. State Department`s Reporting International Agreements to Congress under Case Act website.

They are listed by country and all documents are in pdf format. The Nethercutt Amend was different from previous anti-ICC provisions of the ASPA by imposing cuts in economic aid instead of reductions in military aid. Reducing economic aid is a far more damaging act, because in many countries it has wanted to strengthen the local economy instead of national defence. [Citation required] In addition, existing Agreements on the Status of the Armed Forces (SOFA) and other bilateral agreements already offer full U.S. jurisdiction over U.S. personnel and officials serving abroad. Romania was one of the first countries to sign an agreement with the United States under Article 98. In response to Romania`s action, the European Union has urged candidate countries not to sign Article 98 agreements with the United States until EU ministers meet to reach a common position. In September 2002, the Council of the European Union adopted a common position authorizing Member States to enter into agreements with the United States pursuant to Article 98, but only with regard to US military, US diplomats or consular officials, as well as persons extradited from the United States with their authorization on their territory; U.S. general protection of U.S.

nationals. In addition, the common position stated that anyone protected by such agreements against ICC prosecution should be prosecuted by the United States.