Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T20:14:38.533Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

U. S. Bilateral Agreements Relating to ICC

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2017

Sean D. Murphy
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 97 , Issue 1 , January 2003 , pp. 200 - 203
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States, Pub. L. No. 107-206, §§2001-2015, 116 Stat. 820 (2002) [hereinafter ASPA].

2 See Murphy, Sean D., Contemporary Practice of the United States, 96 AJIL 975 (2002)Google ScholarPubMed. On efforts by the United States at the United Nations to obtain immunity for U.S. forces engaged in U.N.-authorized peacekeeping operations, including the passage of Security Council Resolution 1422, see id., 96 AJIL 725 (2002).

3 ASPA §2005.

4 The prohibition on military assistance does not apply to states that are members of NATO or are a major non-NATO ally, nor does it apply to Taiwan. Further, the president may waive the prohibition with respect to a particular state in the national interests of the United States.

5 ASPA §2007.

6 See, e.g., Becker, Elizabeth, U.S. Presses for Total Exemption from War Crimes Court, N.Y. Times, Oct. 9, 2002, at A6 Google Scholar.

7 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9, Art. 98(2) (1998), 37 ILM 999 (1998). The Rome Statute entered into force on July 1, 2002.

8 Agreement Regarding the Surrender of Persons to the International Criminal Court, Aug. 23, 2002, U.S.-E. Timor (on file at GWU). The bilateral agreements will eventually be published in TIAS.

9 See Becker, Elizabeth, European Union Urges Aspirants to Rebuff U.S. on World Court, N.Y. Times, Aug. 14, 2002, at A11 Google Scholar; Slevin, Peter, U.S. Presses Allies on War Crimes Court, Wash. Post, Aug. 27, 2002, at A12 Google Scholar; Tagliabue, John, More Nations Said to Back World Court Exemptions, N.Y. Times, Sept. 1, 2002, § l , at 10 Google Scholar.

10 [Editor’s Note: Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, May 23,1969, Art. 18,1155 UNTS 331, 8 ILM 679 (1969).]

11 Risks for the Integrity of the Statute of the International Criminal Court, Eur. Pari. Assemb., 2002 Sess., Res. 1300 (2002). For an analysis by the Parliamentary Assembly’s Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, see Risks for the Integrity of the Statute of the International Criminal Court, Eur. Pari. Assemb., 2002 Sess., Doc. 9567 (2002).

12 See European Union Council of Ministers, 2450th Sess., General Affairs and External Relations, Doc. 12134/02 (Presse 279), at 9-10 (Sept. 30,2002); see also Chalmers, John, EU Says Members May Negotiate with U.S. on Court, Wash. Post, Oct. 1, 2002, at A17 Google Scholar.

13 U.S. Dep’t of State Press Release, Signing of Article 98 Agreement of the Rome Statute (Aug. 1, 2002), at <http://www.state.gov>.