| المستخلص: |
The negative position of the United States of America regarding the establishment of the International Criminal Court is an incarnation of its attempt to dominate and impose its desire on the international community, besides, it adopted a huge objection to the establishment of the International Criminal Court, starting from the preparatory work stage, especially after realizing that there is a tendency among the countries participating in the Conference of Plenipotentiaries and what followed towards refusing to grant the Security Council major powers to supervise the cases that the Court will decide on, especially referral to the Court, which expected and hoped that the experiences of the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda tribunals, and the primary role of the Security Council in them, would be replicated and adopted. It can be said that the subsequent targeting campaigns against the court were aimed at undermining and weakening it in order to grant its military forces and citizens immunity from the court’s jurisdiction, even if they had committed violations that considered an international crime and interfered with the court’s jurisdiction. To this end, the United States of America has adopted a qualitative and selective interpretation of the Statute provisions of the International Criminal Court, and it has spared no effort or means but has tried to follow them in order to put obstacles in the way of approving the Statute and then work in every way to discourage states to abide by what is stated in the Court’s Statute By using various means of political and economic pressure to do so. The US position towards the International Criminal Court took a hostile nature after May 6, 2002. The US Defense Secretary (Donald Rumsfeld) went on to describe the court as illegal, and the US administration claimed that the International Criminal Court could be used as a forum for politically motivated trials, although the United States realizes that the Rome Statute has sufficient guarantees to prevent and protect against it, where the United States passed legislation in 2002 known as (The American servicemen's Protection Act (ASPA)), then, another law was passed, known as the Amendment (Nethercutt Amendment), which was issued in 2004 and which prevents the provision of known funding (The American Servican Mens Protection Act - USAID) to the countries that refuse to conclude bilateral agreements, a fund that finances economic development projects and many other programs in various countries of the world, especially the developing countries. Then followed other positions and actions that were aimed at obstructing the court’s actions and trying to prevent some countries from joining the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which represents a disruption of criminal justice and impunity for the perpetrators of international crimes and an attempt to exclude its forces and nationals from being subject to justice.
|
