1994 ABA Policy on the ICC

8/11/2019 1994 ABA Policy on the ICC

1/9

114C

AMEiaCAN

B A R A S S O C I A T I O N

S E C T I O N

O F

I N T E R N A T I O N A L L A W A N D P R A C T I C E

R E C O M M E N D A T I O N

B E IT R E S O L V E D , thatthe Ameri can Bar A s s o c i a t i o nrecommends that the UnitedStates 1

Gove mment taice an active role i n the estabUstiment o f an intemational

c r i m i n a l

court that 2

w o u l d be based on the f o U o w m g princip les: 3

A .

The consensual j u r i s di c t i o n of the intemational

c r i m i n a l

court should be based 4

on the consent of the statehaving custody over a person accused of a crime 5

specif ied

in an intemational convention w h i c h 6

(1) adequately defines the crime; 7

(2) has been w i d e l y accepted bystatesrepresentmg all of the worid 's major 8

l e g a l systems; and 9

(3) contains the extradite or prosecute obUgation. 10

B . The mandatory j u r i s di c t i o n of the intemational c r i m i n a l court should be based 11

on a dec ision by the Security C o u n c il issued pursuant to its powers under 12

Chapter VI I of the Uni ted Nations Charter: 13

(1) determming thatany person or category of persons who have 14

participated in an activity

that

the Security C o u n c il had determined IS

endangers internationalpeaceand security and have been accused of 16

havuig

committed a crime

w h i c h

is recognized by the intemational 17

community as a gross v i o l a t i o n of a rule of customary intemational law 18

w i d e l y accepted bystatesrepresenting all the world's major systems as 19

g i v i n g

rise to personal responsibiUty, should be subject to poss ible 20

prosecution and

t r i a l

m accordance

w i t h

the

stamte

of the court; or 21


2/9

114C

2) transferring to the court for poss ible prosecution and t r i a l any person 22

who has participated, or is participating, in an activity w h i c h the 23

Security C o u n c i l

detemiinedend^gers intemationalpeaceand security 24

and who is accused of having committed a crime under general 25

international law or an intemationaltreaty in force, when a

state

where 26

the accused person is found re&ses to try or extradite

that

person. 27

file=i:\...alaire\un.r r\rec|2


3/9

114C

REPORT

T h i s

recommendation is the second i n a series of

five

recommendations

w h i c h

deal

w i t h

important issues of international lawthatare

c r uc i a l

to the maintenance of intemational peace

and security and justice. They have been developed by the Section of Intemational La w and

P r ac t ice ,dirough its W o r k in gGroup on Improving the Effectiveness of the

U n i t e d

Nations, as

a

conbibution of the

A m e r i c a n

Bar

A s s o c i at i o n

to the 50th Anniversary of die

Un i t e d

N a t i o n s ,

in

ful f i l lment

of the

A m e r i c a n

Bar Association's

G o a l

8 ~ to advance the rule of law

i n the

w o r l d .

This recommendation

addresses

the issue of the establishment of an

Intemational

C i i m i n a l

Court for die punishment of

i n d i v i d u a l s

responsible for gross violations

o f intemational law.

S i n c e

the

A m e r i c a n

Bar Association

( A B A )

considered the first report of the A B A Task

F o r c e

on an Intemational

C r i m i n a l

Court (Task Force) and die report of the Intemational Law

and Practice Section's (Section) Task Force on the International Tr ibunal to Adjudicate War

C l i m e s

Committed in the Former

Y u g o s l a v i a

(War Crimes Task Force), the Intemational Law

C o m m i s s i o n

( I L C )of the U n i t e dNations has issued a new report, the U . S . Commiss ion on

I m p r o v i n g

the Effectiveness of die

U n i t e d

Nations ( U.S. Commission) has issued i ts report,

and the

U n i t e d

States

and other countries are expected to make submissions for the upcoming

session of the I L C . The final report of the A B A Task Force has also presented some

ad d i t iona l

comments on the

I L C s

report. i l of

these

documents cite new and

c r i t i ca l

issues

w h i c h require an adjustment and elaboration of posi tions previously taken by the A B A .

It is v i t a l ly important for the

U n i t e d States

to take an active role in the establishment of an

intemational c r i m i n a l

court able to contribute to the maintenance o f the rule of law, without

w h i c h diere can be no just peace. If the Un i t e d

States

does not take a leading role in the

formation

of the new institution, it may evolve in a direction diat

departs w i d e l y

firom

concepts

that

are fundamental to a system of justice .

F o r these

reasons, die Section strongly beUeves diat any proposal for an intemational

c r i m i n a l

court should

h

comprehensive in addressing issues fundamental to its effective operation.

The U n i t e d

States

should not support a vague proposal

w h i c h w o u l d

leave open for fiiture

ac t ion die development of

j u r i s di c t i o n a l

and procedural issues. In particular, sufficientiy

detailed

rules of evidence and procedure are fundamental to the integrity of any system of

c r i m i n a l

justice, and are necessary to ensure the rights o f the accused and the v i c t i m and to

prevent the

pol i t ic izat ion

of the tribunal. The salient

aspects

of the structure of a tribunal and

its procedures may be subject to comment by the Sec tion in a fuhire report.

Consensual

Jurisdiction

The

Section is of the

v i e w that

the parties to the

statute

of an intemational

c r i m i n a l

court

sh ou l d

have two means of

i n v o k i n g

its

j u r i s di c t i o n :

consensual and mandatory. In die first


4/9

114C

instance, offenders

w o u l d

be voluntarily surrendered by

states.

A party to the

statute

of an

intemational c r i m i n a l court w o u l dbe entitled to refer the caseof an alleged c r i m i n a lfound in

its territoiy to the tribunal instead of trying or extraditingthat person, either on its own

in i t ia t ive, or onrequestof diestatewhere the crime has been committed or of thestateof the

accused person's nationaUty. A n intemational tribunal w o u l d , m effect, serve as a third

aitemative to states cunentfy having only the choice to prosecute or extradite intemational

c r i m i n a l s

fo i m d w i t h i n their country.

The Sectiondoes not support the i n c l us i o nof a provisionthat w o u l d preclude

reference of a case to an mtemational

c r i m i n a l

court when there has been arequestby

another statefor extradition of an accused. The only aitemative to extradit ion w o u l d be for

the requested country to submit the accused to its prosecutorial authorities. This w o u l d

undermine a fundamental purpose of having an intemational c r i m i n a lcourt, w h i c h is to

m a x i m i z e

possible prosecutorial options in respect to intemational crimes.

I n

this regard, the Section w o u l d support the position taken m the commentary to

A r t i c l e

63 of the

I L C s

draft statuteas to whether a

state

party that decided not to surrender

an accused to the court should also be allowed as an aitemative to prosecution to extradite

h i m to another state for prosecution. A l l o w i n g astateparty threeoptions ~ prosecution,

extradition to another

state,

or surrender to the court ~ w o u l d seem the approach most

compatible w i t h the v i e w

that

the court should complenient, rather than compete wi th ,

prosecution before national t i i b i m a l s . The Section concurs

w i t h

the position taken by the

U . S . Commissionthatthe establishment o f an intemational

c r i m i n a l

court should be view ed

not as a substitute for but a complement to national c r i m i n a l systems and other modalities of

bilateral and multi lateral cooperation in penal matters.

Under its consensual j u r i s di c t i o n , reference to an mtemational cr immal court should be

made on a case-by-case basis. A s to whose consent should be requi red for the court to have

j ur i s di c t i o n ,

consent should l>e required only of the

state

w i t h

custody over an accused,

provided

thatthe stateof custody w o u l d have a basis under the pertinent international

convention for exercisuig j u r i s di c t i o n . It is recognizedthat

t l i i s

position is inconsistent w i t h

die first report of the A B A Task Force and the I L C s draft stamte, where the consent of the

stateorstateso f w h i c h the accused is a national w o u l d also have been requhed. However, it

is

consistent w i t h the positions taken by the Task Force in its f i n a l report and by the I L C s

w o r i d n g group.'

What

the Section now recommends is not different from the statusquo today where

the consent of tiiestatehaving custody controls. Unde r existing conventions, normally the

state of custody is obliged to establish its j u r i s di c t i o n over the offense so it can subnut an

accused to prosecution i f itdoesnot extradite him to either the territorial

state

or the

state

of

For

further

discussion,

see the Final

Report

of the

American

Bar

Association Task

Force

on an

Intemational

Criminal

Court

at21 26.


5/9

114C

nationality. Sinc e neitherthestatei n w h i c h thecrime occurred, northestateo fnationality,

nor the

state

o fcustody requires theconsent o fany other

state

tosubmitanaccusedto

prosecution before it snational courts, such consent shouldnot berequired forsuch statesto

submitanaccusedto anintemational c r i m i n a l court.

Subject-Matter Jurisdi ction

W h i le

the

Section supports

an

intemational c r i m i n a l court w i t h broad subject-matter

j ur i s di c t i o n , itrecognizes

that

die breaddi o fsubject-matter j u r i s di c t i o n may ultimatelybe

dictated by

p o l i t i ca l

developments. Depending uponthecircumstances, a more modest and

incremental approach may have

a

greater l i k e l i h o o d

o f

success. A c c o r d i n g l y ,

the

subject

matter ofconsensual j u r i s di c t i o n wo ul d

i n i t i a l ly

b l i m i t e d tointemational conventions

that

are w i de l y accepted bystates representing allo fthe world 's major legal systems and thatare

subjectto anextradite orprosecute obligation. A l i s to fsuch conventions iscontainedin

A r t i c l e

22 ofdie I L C s draft statute.

I ntemis o fw h i c h crimesastate

is

preparedtorecognizeaswithin

the court's

j ur i s di c t i o n ,an opting in system alongthelinessetforth inaltemative A o f

A r t i c l e

23 of

the I L C s draft

statutei s

preferred.

A

stateparty

to the

court's

statute

coul d by declaration

lodged w i t h

theRegistrar,at any time accept the j u r i s di c t i o n over one ormoreo fthe crimes

referredto inarticle 22. This approach w o u l dbe themost f l e x i b le and the onemost

commensurate with the

concept

thatthe courtwould serveas

a

supplemental forum to

national courtsfor theprosecution ofintemational crimes.

The Section recommends against i n c l u s i o no fthe cr imeo f aggression, w h i c h is not

defined in anyintemational convention. The only o ff ic ia l ly adopted definitiono faggression

i s thatcontained i nGeneral Assemb ly Resolution 3314, adopted in1974, w h i c h though

considered

by

many

as a

generally accepted interpretation

o f

the

U . N .

Charter,

is

considered

by

othersasintended onlyas a

p o l i t i ca l

guide andnot asuitable definitionforpurposeso f

prosecution. In asim ilar regard, apartheid isanother issue w h i c h may have more

p o l i t i ca l

than legal content and raisetherisko fp o l i t i c i z a t i o nofdie court. F i n a l l y , theSection

recommends against reference to theCodeo fCrimes AgainstthePeace and Securityo f

M a n k i n d in

A r t i cl e

21 ofthe I L C s draft

statute

as apossible additionto thel i s t . Some items

i n that code have engendered strongly negative reactions .

The Sectionis ofthe v i e w

that

dmg-related crimes shouldbeconsidered for i n c l us i o n

i n thecourt's subject-matter j u r i s di c t i o n . However, drag-related crimes, inclu dingthecrimes

referred to in the1988 United Nations Conven tion against

I l l i c i t T r a f f i c

inNarcotics and

Psychotropic Substances, do not atpresentqualifyfori n c l us i o n in the I L C s draft

statute

because o f alacko fadequate definition. I fsuch crimes are to beincluded, they shouldbe

more precisely defined

in the

court's

statute.


6/9

114C

I n

terms ofwhat ciimes should be added to the subject-matter

j u r i s di c t i o n

of tiie court,

the Section w o u l d encour^^e the addition of torture to

A r t i c l e

of the draft

statute

of the

I L C . Consideration shouldalsobe given to

crinKs

covered by the Convention on the

P h y s i c a lProtection of Nuclear M a t e r ia l and to crimes agauist U N peaceJceepers and

humanitarian woricers under proposed new treaty law.

Mandatory Jurisdi ction

U n l i k e

the U . S . C o m m i s s i o n , the Section considers thatprovi sion should be made for

a second meansof i n v o k i n g the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the interaadonal c r i m i n a l court. It w o u l d be

mandatory innatureand w o i d d require a mandate firom the Security C o u n c il issued pursuant

to its powers under C h^ te r V II of the United Nations Charter:

a. determming

fliat

any person or category of persons who have

participated in an activitythatthe Security

C o u n c il

had determined

endangers international peaceand security and have been accused of

havuig

committed a crime w h i c h is recognized by the intemational

community as a gross v i o la t i o n of a mIe of customary intemational law

w i d e l y

accepted by

states

representing al l the world's major systems as

g i v i n g rise topersonal responsibility should be subject to possible

prosecution and t r i a l in accordance w i t h the

stamte

of the court; or

b .

transferring to the court for poss ible prosecution and t r i a l any person

who is participating in an activity w h i c h the Security

C o u n c il

had

detennined endangers internationalpeaceand security and who is

accused of having committed a crime under general international law or

an mtemational treaty in force, when a

state

where the accused person

is found reftises to try or extradite that person.

Respectf i iUy submitted.

James H . Carter

C h a i r m a n

August 1994

tile=i:\users\inUaw\alaire\iin.r r\rpt|2


7/9

114C

GENERAL INFORMATIONFORM

S u b m i t t i n g

E n t i t y : S e c t io n

of

I n t e r n a t i o n a l

Law and

P r a c t i c e

S u b m i t t e dBy: James H. C a r t e r C h a i rof theS e c t i o nof


Law and

P r a c t i c e

1. Summaryof Recommendation.

The Recommendation u r g e s t h a tthe A m e r i c a nBar A ss o c i a t i o n

i n

a n t i c i p a t i o nof the

f i f t i t h

a n n i v e r s a r y of the Un i t ed

N a t i o n sand the Decade of I n t e m a t i o n a lLaw

a d o p t

a p o l i c y

t h a t d e a l s w i t hthe e s t a b l i s h m e n tof an I n t e r n a t i o n a l

C r i m i n a l

C o u r t

for the

pxinishment

of

i n d i v i d u a l s r e s p o n s i b l e

f o r

g r o s s v i o l a t i o n sof i n te r n a t i o n a llaw. T h i s i s s u eis

c r u c i a lto them a i n t e n a n c eof i n t e r n a t i o n a lp e a c e s e c u r i t y

and j u s t i c e and to the f u l f i l l m e n tofG o a l V I I Iof the ABA

the advancement of ther u l eof law in the w o r l d .

2. A p p r o v a jby S u b m i t t i n g E n t i t y .

T h i s

Recommendation was

a p p r o v e d

by the

C o u n c i l

of the

S e c t i o nof I n t e r n a t i o n a lLaw and P r a c t i c eat i t sm e e t i n gon

A p r i l30, 1994 inWash ingto n D.C.

3. Has T h i sor A S i m i l a rRecommendation Been

S u b m i t t e d

to the

House orB P^ rd

p r e v i o u sl y ?

No.

4. Wh^t E x i s t i n g A ss o c i a t i o n P o l i c i e sAreR e l e v a n tto T h i s

Recommendation and How Would Thev Be A f f e c t e dbv It s

Ad o p t i o n ?

I n

1992, the ABA recommended

t h a t

the U.S.

work

t o wa rd

f i n d i n g

s o l u t i o n sto i s s u e s c o n c e r n i n g s u c ha c o u r t .No

e x i s t i n g p o l i c i e swould be a f f e c t e dby

a p p r o v a l

of t h i s

Recommendation.

5. Wh^t

u r g e n c y

E x i s t s y h j c h R e q u i r e s A c t i o n^ tT h i s M e e t i n gof

th eHouse?

A p p r o v a l

of

t h i s

Recommendation and

R e p o r t

by the House of

D e l e g a t e sat t h i s

M e e t i n g

i s needed ino r d e rto i n f l u e n c e

t h e d i s c u s s i o n

w h i c h w i l l t a k e

p l a c e

b e g i n n i n g

e a r l y

i n 1995

i n

c o n j u n c t i o n

w i t hthe f i f t i t h

a n n i v e r s a r y

of the

Un i t ed

N a t i o n s .


8/9

114C

6. S t a t u sof

L e g i s l a t i o n

N o t a p p l i c a b l e .

7 .

C o s t

tot h e A s s o c i a t i o n

N o ne.

8.

D i s c l o s u r e

ofI n t e y e s t

N o ne.

9. R e f e r r a l s .

T h i s

R e p o r t

and

R e c o m m e nd a t i o n

was

r e f e r r e d

to

a l l o t h e r

ABA

S e c t i o n sand

e n t i t i e s

and t o

t h e

New

Y o r k S t a t e

Bar

A s s o c i a t i o n

and

t h e M i l w a u k e e

Bar

A s s o c i a t i o n .

1 0 . C o n t a c t P e r s o n .

T h e

p r i n c i p l e

c o n t a c t

p e o p l e

i n the

S e c t i o n

of


L a w

and

P r a c t i c e a r e :

L o u i sB. S o h n , E s q u i r e

G e o r g e W a s h i n g t o n U n i v e r s i t y -

N a t i o n a l

Law

C e n t e r

7 2 0 2 0 t h S t r e e t ,

N.W.

W a s h i n g t o n ,

D.C. 2 0 0 5 2

P h o n e : 2 0 2 ) 9 9 4 - 7 3 9 0

F a x : 2 0 2 )

994-9446

K a t h r y n

S.M a c k , E s q u i r e

C a r n e g i e E n d o w m e n t f o r


P e a c e

2 4 0 0

N

S t r e e t ,

N.W.


D.C. 2 0 0 3 7

P h o n e : 2 0 2 ) 8 6 2 - 7 9 8 0

F a x : 2 0 2 )

8 6 2 - 2 6 1 0

1 1 . C o n t a c t P e r s o n .

C h a r l e s

N.

B r o w e r , E s q u i r e

W h i t e

C a s e

1 7 7 5 P e n n s y l v a n i a A v e . ,

N.W.

S u i t e

500


D.C.

2 0 0 0 6

P h o n e : 2 0 2 ) 8 7 2 - 0 0 1 3

F a x : 2 0 2 ) 8 7 2 - 0 1 2 0

J a m e s

R.

S i l k e n a t , E s q u i r e

W i n t h r o p ,

S t i m s o n ,

P u t n a m

R o b e r t s

O n e B a t t e r y

P a r k

P l a z a

New

Y o r k ,

NY

10004

P h o n e : (212) 858-1 322

F a x : (212) 858- 1500


9/9

114C

C o n t a c t P e r s o n R e g a r d i n gAmendments toT h i sRecommendation.

No p r o p o s e damendments

h a v e

b e e n r e c e i v e d . Thep e o p l eto

c o n t a c t

c o n c e r n i n g p r o p o s e damendments are:

L o u i sB.Sohn, E s q u i r e

G e o r g e W a s h i n gt o n U n i v e r s i t y

N a t i o n a l

Law C e n t e r

720

20th

S t r e e t N.W.

Washingt on D.C. 20052

Phone: 202) 994-7390

Fax: 202) 994-9446

K a t h r y nS. Mack,E s q u i r e

C a r n e g i eEndowment for

I n t e r n a t i o n a l P e a c e

2 4 0 0N S t r e e t N.W.

Washingt on D.C. 2 0 0 3 7

Phone:

2 0 2 ) 8 6 2 - 7 9 8 0

Fax:

2 0 2 ) 8 6 2 - 2 6 1 0

1994 ABA Policy on the ICC

Documents

Transcript of 1994 ABA Policy on the ICC