The impact of U.S. President Joe Biden’s election has raised expectations of increased U.S. support and involvement with the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Many observers said Biden’s emphasis on multilateralism and his support for the international tribunal as a Democrat on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations were positive signs.
But the Biden administration has not revoked the September 2020 action order of former President Donald Trump that imposed sanctions on ICC workers, including prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, raising new questions about what policy Biden intends to pursue.
“I think that was expected [the lifting of sanctions] it would be automated, and not only would the removal of existing sanctions be a fait accompli, but the actual regulatory order would be suspended, ”said William Schabas, professor international law at Middlesex University in London.
The sanctions at the time of Trump were lifted after the two-decade tribunal launched an investigation into abuse committed by various actors in Afghanistan, including those with workers U.S. and CIA military previously registered in domestic and international probes.
That follow-up investigation, and the court’s announcement Wednesday that they were opening an investigation into prosecution crimes in the Palestinian-owned areas, could exacerbate Biden’s approach, observers told Al Jazeera.
However, “there is a difference between disagreeing with the ICC ‘s decision and unfairly punishing ICC officials in ugly, thuggish ways,” said Sari Bashi, a human rights lawyer and democracy director at Democracy for an Arab World Now (DAWN), with Al Jazeera.
“Biden does not have to agree with every decision the prosecutor makes to say that the U.S. should not impose human rights defenders.”
Sanctions
In early February, the Biden administration had recommended to the ICC the conviction of Dominic Ongwen, commander of the Lord ‘s Resistance Army (LRA), for war crimes committed in Uganda in the early 2000s.
Shortly afterwards, the administration said it had “serious concerns” about the tribunal’s decision that the Palestinian-owned territories come under its control, paving the way for the investigation of war crimes. recently announced who would look into the Palestinian and Israeli actions.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the U.S. is “strongly opposed and deeply disappointed” by the court’s investigation, adding that the U.S. “remains committed to ensuring justice and accountability for international criminal offenses ”and recognizes“ the role of international tribunals such as the ICC in playing ”.
Prior to the court announcement, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had persuaded Biden in his first phone call on Feb. 17 to keep U.S. sanctions on ICC officials.
The ICC has launched an investigation into war crimes in Palestinian territories that may involve Israeli [File: Ibraheem Abu Mustafa/Reuters]
Bashi said Biden is likely to be under “terrible pressure, not only from Israel, but from Israeli alliances” to keep pressure on the ICC as a result of the investigation.
In February, 80 non-governmental, faith-based, and academic groups around the world called on the Biden administration to lift the sanctions, which was also imposed on a senior member of Bensouda’s office, Phakiso Mochochoko , and anyone who “substantially assists” the officers.
“These actions were an unprecedented attack on the court’s mandate to deliver justice and rule of law worldwide, abuse of U.S. government financial powers, and betrayal of the U.S. legacy in prosecuting justice institutions. international, “the groups said in an open letter.
“Maintaining the regulatory order allowing sanctions would be inconsistent with the new administration’s laudable commitments to respect the rule of law and to follow common ground. multilateral operations in support of US interests, “he said.
Prospect of change
Biden’s victory in November last year had sparked hope for a change in policy toward the ICC as opposed to Trump, who took an anti-tribunal approach, as he did with the majority. -some international organizations.
But historically the U.S. has largely ignored the Hague-based court, which is the only permanent court with jurisdiction to prosecute racist, international crimes, crimes of war, and crimes against humanity.
In 2000, former President Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statute, the governing and founding treaty of the court, a preliminary step for entry into the treaty, which was never ratified by the Senate. SA. President George W Bush later signed a “treaty”, indicating that he would not support ratification.
It is unlikely to be like the court, which required a two-thirds majority in the Senate.
However, relations between the US and the ICC peaked during the presidency of Barack Obama.
Brianne McGonigle Leyh, a professor at the Dutch Institute for Human Rights at Utrecht University, said the Obama administration supported some of the court’s work while “it was a fundamental belief in highness. the governance of the US justice system and the pre-eminent position of the US in the world ”.
Under what he called “progressive communication,” the U.S. helped turn to the court two refugees; supported the transfer of the UN Security Council on Libya to the tribunal, and cooperated with ICC members on some aspects of investigations.
“I still hope the Biden administration returns to the real credibility we saw under the Obama administration,” McGonigle Leyh told Al Jazeera, adding, however, that there is a delay in building control. ICC bonds raise questions about pressure on Biden administration.
“The administration needs to ask… to what extent do they want to support accountability for serious international crimes? To what extent does he want to support the rule of law, not only at home, but also abroad? ”She said. “For me, those are the key issues.”
‘Court moves forward’
Schabas said the Biden administration is unlikely to take the same aggressive stance towards the ICC that Trump took because of “too much support within the administration and its political basis for the court”.
However, he said it was unclear whether Biden would warm to Obama administration standards since “the court has moved forward in investigations that threaten the United States”.
At the same time, the ICC will not “buckle” under U.S. pressure to admit their probe to abuse in Afghanistan, although ICC officials have said Washington could end the investigation by following the investigation and prosecution itself sufficiently, in accordance with the provisions of the Rome Statute.
Afghan civilians protest against U.S. special forces accused of monitoring torture and killings in the Wardak area [File: Mirwais Harooni/Reuters]
Schabas said that while many people believe that U.S. communication with the ICC would be helpful, the opposite may also be true.
“A lot of commitment to the court and the potential for continued expansion in the world is a fact that it does not intimidate the United States and was willing to go ahead with investigations that threaten American interests,” he said.
“The court has moved on – and it has moved on without the United States.”