May 2002 EMT
LWVUS United Nations Study

Introduction

League of Women Voters/Sacramento members will discuss the proposed LWVUS new position on the United Nations (UN) at the week of May 13th Unit Meetings. However, members must mail to LWV/United States their own opinion on concurrence with the proposed position. The postmark deadline for concurrence is May 21, 2002.

The proposed position has five sections:

1. Statement of support for the UN and for U.S. participation in the UN system
2. UN peace operations
3. UN development and humanitarian work
4. International legal system, including a statement of support for creation of the International Criminal Court
5. UN Governance and Financing

Do You Concur with the Proposed New LWVUS Position on the UN?

The League of Women Voters has long been among the staunchest supporters of the United Nations. In 1944, the League went on record in support of "U.S. membership in an international organization for the peaceful settlement of disputes, with the machinery to handle economic, social and political problems."

In the months before the UN was formally established, the League launched an unprecedented nationwide campaign to help build public understanding of the international agreements setting up the UN. The League trained more than 5,000 speakers and distributed more than a million brochures during a six-month period. At the UN Charter Conference in San Francisco in 1945, the League was one of 42 non-governmental organizations invited by President Truman to serve as a consultant to the U.S. delegation.

The League has reexamined its UN position on several occasions in the intervening years, most recently in 1976-77. Although the current position remains sound, it does not address the range of new strategies the UN pursues in promoting world peace and security. Nor does it speak to other recent developments, including the proposed establishment of the International Criminal Court.

Convention 2000 adopted a process to update the UN position in order to address these gaps and examine other changes that have taken place since the League's last study 25 years ago. A task force of state and local League representatives has been working with the LWVUS Board and staff to guide the update process. Now your input in needed!

A proposed new LWVUS position on the UN has been developed, and the LWVUS Board is seeking concurrence directly from individual League members. We are being asked whether we strongly support, accept, or do not accept the proposed position. After you have studied the position and formed your opinion, send in your concurrence response to the LWVUS office.

The International Criminal Court: Achieving Justice for All

The proposed new LWVUS position on the United Nations includes a statement of support for the creation of a permanent international tribunal (e.g., the International Criminal Court) to try individuals charged with crimes of genocide, war crimes, and other crimes against humanity. The new position would allow the League to advocate for U.S. participation in the ICC.

Q. What is the International Criminal Court?
A. The ICC will be a permanent court that will prosecute individuals charged with the most heinous of crimes, such as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The statute calling for the creation of the ICC was endorsed by 120 countries attending the UN-convened conference in Rome in 1998. The Court will enter into force on July 1, 2002 and the Court's jurisdiction over genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity will be activated.

The ICC will not be a part of the UN but will be accountable to the countries that ratify the statute, the Assembly of State Parties. The Court will be located in The Hague, although it can be convened in another venue when appropriate. It will consist of 18 internationally respected judges elected for nine-year terms by the Assembly of State Parties, who will also elect the Court's prosecutors. Cases can be referred to the Court by the member states or by the UN Security Council or they can be initiated by the Court's Prosecutor.

Q. Why can't these crimes be handled by ad hoc tribunals or domestic courts?
A. The idea of a permanent international court of this kind was first considered at the UN in 1948. More recently, the atrocities in Yugoslavia and in Rwanda—for which ad hoc tribunals were established by the UN Security Council—have heightened interest in a permanent mechanism to prosecute.mass murderers and war criminals. The delays inherent in setting up an ad hoc tribunal can mean that crucial evidence is destroyed and perpetrators escape or disappear. Since World War II, there have been many instances of crimes against humanity for which no individuals have been held accountable. A permanent court will be able to act more consistently and serve as a deterrent by making it clear that the international community will not allow such crimes to go unpunished.

National courts will always have jurisdiction; the ICC is intended to "complement" national judicial systems and will act only when the national courts are unable or unwilling to do so. In times of conflict or political or social upheaval, domestic courts may not be capable of dealing with these types of crimes or providing a fair trial. Or the government in power may be unwilling to prosecute its own citizens, especially if they are of high rank.

Q. What assurances are there that the Court will not be used for political purposes?
A. The Rome Statute establishes the highest of qualifications for the Court's judges and prosecutors, provides for their selection by the Assembly of State Parties, and makes them subject to sanction or removal by the Assembly in cases of serious misconduct. Checks and balances have also been built into the system. The Prosecutor cannot initiate a case, for example, without permission from a three-judge panel. The Prosecutor is obliged to defer to states that are willing and able to pursue their own investigations. And the Security Council can act to suspend a case for renewable one-year periods.

Q. Can the Court try Americans and will the Court's trials be fair by U.S. standards?
A. Americans could only be tried by the ICC for a crime of the most serious nature, one that involves widespread and systematic violations of humanitarian law. If an American were to be accused of such a crime, the U.S. would have jurisdiction over the case. Only if the U.S. was unwilling or unable to conduct a genuine investigation or prosecution could the ICC intervene.

Every due process protection provided for in the U.S. Constitution is guaranteed by the Rome Statute, with the exception of a trial by jury. Indeed, it provides many more due process protections than are currently guaranteed to American citizens accused of crimes abroad. Moreover, even in the U.S., American service personnel are not guaranteed a jury trial under the courts martial system.

Q. What is the current position of the United States towards the ICC?
A. The U.S. joined six other nations (including Iraq and China) in voting against the creation of the ICC at the Rome conference in 1998. President Clinton, however, did sign the treaty by the December 31, 2000 deadline, enabling U.S. negotiators to continue to help shape the evolution of the Court. In signing the treaty, Clinton noted its "significant flaws" and indicated that he would not recommend that his successor submit the treaty to the Senate for ratification until those concerns were satisfied.

The primary concern is that U.S. leaders and military personnel could be the target of politicized prosecutions. Alternatives proposed by the U.S. included requiring that the accused's country of nationality consent to the prosecution and requiring that all proceedings be initiated by the Security Council (where the U.S. has a veto). Most other countries felt such restrictions would fatally weaken the Court, however, and rejected this approach.

The Bush Administration is considering several options. These range from maintaining the status quo (i.e., no treaty ratification but continued participation in ICC negotiations) to withdrawing the U.S. signature from the Rome Statute (which would close the door to U.S. participation in ICC talks) to mounting a global anti-ratification campaign. Congressional critics of the ICC have introduced the American Servicemembers Protection Act, which would prohibit any U.S. cooperation with the ICC and authorize the U.S. to use "all means necessary and appropriate" to free U.S. military personnel being held by or for the ICC. An alternative proposal would encourage active U.S. diplomatic efforts to address continuing concerns while authorizing support and assistance to the ICC.

Q. How will the U.S. benefit by participating in the ICC?
A. At a practical level, since the Court can assert jurisdiction over Americans and U.S. allies, it would be advantageous to be in a position to help nominate, select and dismiss the judges and prosecutors who will be conducting the Court's business. As a State Party, the U.S. would also be able to participate in defining potential new crimes to come under ICC jurisdiction, such as the crime of aggression which is now the subject of negotiation. More broadly, participation in the ICC is in keeping with the country's historic commitment to international law and human rights, long seen as important to advancing U.S. values and interests. By working to strengthen this new institution, the U.S. can help make it an effective and impartial instrument for international justice.

More information can be found from links on the LWVUS Members page. (Remember the user name and password are found in the insert of the National Voter.) You can also find information in the March/April 2002 National Voter either in the one recently received or online.