[2002] U.S. Announces Intent Not to Ratify International Criminal Court Treaty

U.S. Announces Intent Not to Ratify International Criminal Court Treaty

On May 6, 2002, the Bush Administration announced that the United States does not intend to become a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. John Bolton, the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, sent a letter to Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, stating that “the United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty,” and that, “[a]ccordingly, the United States has no legal obligations arising from its signature on December 31, 2000.” [1]

While the policy merits of the Bush Administration’s announcement are of course open to debate, the announcement appears to be consistent with international law. There is nothing in international law that obligates a signatory to a treaty to become a party to the treaty, [6] and the Rome Statute itself (in Article 125) states that it is “subject to ratification, acceptance or approval by signatory States.” In addition, Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that, upon signing a treaty, a nation is “obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose” of the treaty “until it shall have made its intention clear not to become a party to the treaty.” The Vienna Convention thus contemplates that nations may announce an intent not to ratify a treaty after signing it.

Related:

International Criminal Court: Letter to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan

Secretary Rumsfeld Statement On The ICC Treaty

American Foreign Policy and the International Criminal Court

President Clinton Statement on Signature of the International Criminal Court Treaty

Modern Treaty Law and Practice: Third Edition (PDF)

International law : cases and materials

How Canada Created the R2P Doctrine, with Myanmar as its Next Potential Victim

By Daniel Xie – September 2, 2022

On September 21, 2021, Myanmar’s National Unity Government (NUG), a government-in-exile formed by supporters of former state counselor Aung San Suu Kyi declared a “people’s defensive war” against the Tatmadaw (another name for the armed forces of Myanmar). Suu Kyi’s party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), was overthrown by the Tatmadaw in February 2021. On a video broadcast on Facebook, NUG acting president Duwa Lashi La declared a “public revolution” against military “terrorists”. This declaration of open war comes after months of sporadic armed resistance by various anti-government civilian militias and ethnic militias.

How Canada Created the R2P Doctrine, with Myanmar as its Next Potential Victim

NATO as religion

By: Alfred de Zayas January 24, 2022

Link to original article: https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/01/24/nato-as-religion/

The US/NATO/Ukraine/Russia controversy is not entirely new. We already saw the potential of serious trouble in 2014 when the US and European states interfered in the internal affairs of Ukraine and covertly/overtly colluded in the coup d’état against the democratically elected President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, because he was not playing the game assigned to him by the West. Of course, our media hailed the putsch as a “colour revolution” with all the trappings of democracy.

NATO as religion

Counterpunch: The Rule of Law Must Finally Evolve Into the Rule of Justice

Photo credit: James Burke

BY ALFRED DE ZAYAS JANUARY 14, 2022

Many politicians, academics, media pundits are wont of invoking the “rule of law”, a “rules-based international order”, “values diplomacy” etc. But what do all these benevolent-sounding slogans actually mean in practice? Who makes the rules, who interprets them, who enforces them? What transparency and accountability accompany these noble pledges?

Counterpunch: The Rule of Law Must Finally Evolve Into the Rule of Justice

Resolution for 2022: Dare to Build Your Own Opinions and Then Defend Them!

BY: ALFRED DE ZAYAS

Anyone who has followed the political culture in the US, Canada, UK, EU over the past twenty years must have realized that a war on epistemology, on truth, on semantics is going on. We witness the hijacking of concepts like democracy, freedom, peace, patriotism, human rights — and their instrumentalization for domestic and geopolitical purposes. We observe a process of language destruction not unlike what Orwell foresaw in his sadly visionary book 1984. “Newspeak” is not the future, it is now, hic et nunc. We recognize it in the jargon of political correctness, the language and practice of the “cancel culture”.

COUNTERPUNCH: Resolution for 2022: Dare to Build Your Own Opinions and Then Defend Them!