No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 January 2017
For nearly three decades, the United States has offered monetary rewards designed to facilitate the apprehension and transfer for trial of suspects when their trial would directly advance American national interests. In the 1990s, for example, posters and matchbooks appeared across the Balkans with contact information available to anyone who might be willing to assist in the transfer of Slobodan Milošević or Radovan Karadžić to face charges before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugloslavia. In Congress’s view, this rewards program has helped to generate actionable intelligence that has prevented terrorist attacks, aided convictions of key suspects charged with participation in other acts of international terror, and served as “one of the most valuable assets the U.S. Government has in the fight against international terrorism.” In his public comments introducing this legislation, the United States Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes acknowledged that fourteen payments were made under existing legislation in the two years prior to passage of this bill, averaging $400,000 per person. Details remain classified of course, but the rewards have provided instrumental incentives in numerous high profile cases, inter alia, the arrest of the architect of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the deaths of Uday and Qusay Hussein at the hands of American military forces following the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
* This text was reproduced and reformatted from the text available at the U.S. Government Printing Office Web site (visited June 13, 2013), http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s2318enr/pdf/BILLS-112s2318enr.pdf.
1 The Department of State Rewards Program Update and Technical Corrections Act of 2012 Act, Pub. L. 112-283, 126 Stat. 2492 (2012) [hereinafter 2012 Act].
2 Stephen, J. Rapp, Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues, Expansion of the War Crimes Rewards Program (Apr. 3, 2013)Google Scholar, http://www.state.gov/j/gcj/us_releases/remarks/2013/207031.htm [hereinafter Expansion of the War Crimes Rewards Program].
3 2012 Act, supra note 1, § 2(b)(1).
4 Rome Statute of the ICC arts. 12-19, July 17, 1998, 2187 U.N.T.S. 90, http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/romefra.htm [hereinafter Rome Statute].
5 Michael, A. Newton, The Quest for Constructive Complementarity , in The International Criminal Court and complementarity: from theory to practice 304 (Carsten, Stahn & Mohammed, El Zeidy eds., 2011 Google Scholar), http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1585402.
6 David, J. Scheffer, The United States and the International Criminal Court , 93 Am. J. Int’l L. 14, 21 (1999)Google Scholar.
7 See Rome Statute, supra note 4, at art. 125(1) (stipulating that states may accede to the Statute at a later time if their domestic processes permit, but that signature in the absence of accession was permissible only until December 31, 2000).
8 Presidential Statement on the Rome Treaty on the International Criminal Court (Dec. 31, 2000), 37 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 4 (Jan. 8, 2001)Google Scholar, reprinted in Murphy, S. D., United States Practice in International Law: Volume 1, 1999-2001 384 (2002)Google Scholar.
9 Id.
10 Marc, Grossman, Under Secretary for Political Affairs, U.S. Dep’t of State, Remarks to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (May 6, 2002)Google Scholar, http://2001-2009.state.gov/p/us/rm/9949.htm.
11 Id. In its most memorable tagline, the official U.S. policy position was summarized as follows: “the United States respects the decision of those nations who have chosen to join the ICC; but they in turn must respect our decision not to join the ICC or place our citizens under the jurisdiction of the court. So, despite this difference, we must work together to promote real justice after July 1, when the Rome Statute enters into force.” Id.
12 Id.
13 2012 Act, supra note 1, at § 3(2)(E).
14 John, T. Holmes, The Principle of Complementarity , in The International Criminal Court and the Making of the Rome Statue: Issues, Negotiations, and Results 41, 73-74 (Roy, S. Lee ed., 1999)Google Scholar.
15 See Expansion of the War Crimes Rewards Program, supra note 2. There was extensive debate during the drafting of the Elements of Crimes for the International Criminal Court over the relative merits of the terms “perpetrator” or “accused.” Though some delegations were concerned that the term “perpetrator” would undermine the presumption of innocence, the delegates to the Preparatory Commission (PrepCom) ultimately agreed to use the former in the Elements after including a comment in the introductory chapeau that “the term ‘perpetrator’ is neutral as to guilt or innocence.” See Preparatory Comm’n for the ICC, Rep. of the Prep. Comm’n for the ICC, U.N. Doc. PCNICC/2000/INF/3/Add.2 (Nov. 2, 2000), in Knüt, Dormann Elements of War Crimes Under The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Sources and Commentary 14 (2002)Google Scholar.
16 See Uganda, ICC, http//icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/situations%20and%20cases/situations/situation%20icc%200204/related%20cases/icc%200204%200105/Pages/uganda.aspx (last visited Sept. 11, 2013).
17 See Democratic Republic of the Congo, ICC, http://icccpi.int/en_menus/icc/situations%20and%20cases/situations/situation%20icc%200104/related%20cases/icc01040112/Pages/icc01040112.aspx (last visited Sept. 11, 2013).
18 2012 Act, supra note 1, at § 5.
19 American Service-members’ Protection Act, 22 U.S.C. § 7423(e) (2013) (“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no agency or entity of the United States Government or of any State or local government, including any court, may provide support to the International Criminal Court.”).
20 Id. at § 7432(12) (“The term ‘support’ means assistance of any kind, including financial support, transfer of property or other material support, services, intelligence sharing, law enforcement cooperation, the training or detail of personnel, and the arrest or detention of individuals.”).
21 Id. at § 7433 (emphasis added).
22 See 148 Cong. Rec. S7859 (2002).
23 Id.