Have certain countries which have ratified the ICC been given immunity or a waiver from prosecution under the ICC for a block of time? I’ve heard this in many places (and in many cases from people who favor implementing the ICC), but no firm cites and I’m hoping someone here knows something.
I’ve done some searching for information on this, but have found a staggering lack of information. I’ve seen the assertion repeated in various places without challenge, but haven’t seen anything which would confirm or deny it.
Fair enough question, and one I’m interested in seeing an answer to. But it’s fair enough too to point readers to this GD thread (and the one linked to therein) where Riboflavin himself makes the claim that such immunities exist.
It’s also fair enough to point out that I made the claim two days ago, when I wasn’t aware that there was a dispute over the matter and have not repeated the claim after discovering both that it was not an accepted fact and that I couldn’t find any confirmation on it. I also don’t see what purpose your link serves here in GQ, since it doesn’t have anything to do with the facts of the matter and any debate over whether I was wrong to treat as true something I’ve read in multiple newspaper articles, heard stated by a high-ranking member of the US government, heard stated by proponents of the ICC, and (at the time of my post) had not heard anyone dispute really doesn’t belong here, does it?
I have no idea were this utter nonsense first arose, but it’s spin - that’s for sure.
Look here to find a list of the nations that participated in Rome and which of these have ratified the Rome Treaty, which establishes the ICC.
Scroll down the page to find the declarations they made when ratifying, if they did any.
One (1) nation, France (always the French) have declared that they do not recognize the courts jurisdiction when a crime under Article 8 has been committed by one of her nationals or on her territory.
The US can go ahead and do the same. This is a declaration by France the creates a caveat for them to protest under should this situation arise, doesn’t mean anything like ‘negotiated immunity’ though.
The other declarations either pertain to quibbles over formulation of passages or are clarification on procedure as regards the signing country.
Article 8 for the very interested but lazy reader is ‘War Crimes’.
You mean it is possible for a politician to <<gasp>> not know what he is talking about? Or for a government official to <<gasp>>, lie? Oh my goodness! What is the world coming to?
