US withdraws UN measure to ICC immunity

From: Annette L. Demers (ademers@law.harvard.edu)
Date: Wed Jun 23 2004 - 11:02:57 PDT


For everyone interested in the International Criminal Court and the United
States latest bid for immunity:

>Dear all,
>
>As just reported in the news, the United States has abandoned its efforts
>to obtain immunity for peacekeepers by renewal of Security Council
>Resolution 1487.
>
>
>
>Following is the comment made by Fred Eckhardt, Spokesperson for UN
>Secretary General Kofi Annan, in response to the US announcement:
>
>
>
>The Secretary General has been following the discussion in the Security
>Council on the ICC. He believes that the decision by the United States not
>to pursue a resolution on this matter will help maintain the unity of the
>Security Council at a time when it faces difficult challenges.
>
>
>
>Below is a summary of the initial news stories on this issue.
>
>
>
>BBC notes that the US immunity bid has failed. It quotes US Ambassador to
>the UN James Cunningham, stating: "The United States has decided not to
>proceed further with consideration and action on the draft at this time in
>order to avoid a prolonged and divisive debate. [...] We are dropping
>action on this resolution."
>
>Full article at:
><http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3834089.stm>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3834089.stm
>
>Reuters adds that Cunningham "did not specifically threaten to veto U.N.
>peacekeeping operations but said the United States needed to take 'into
>account' the council's position on the International Criminal Court 'when
>determining contributions to UN-authorized or established operations.'"
>
>The article adds that "more than seven countries signaled they would
>abstain. The United States has rarely faced such opposition in the
>council, with the notable exception of its attempt to get U.N. endorsement
>for the invasion of Iraq last year. [...] But this year specter of U.S.
>abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan made it difficult for members
>to extend the resolution for the third time, even though analysts say the
>scandal would not come before the new tribunal."
>
>Full article at:
><http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5495886>http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5495886
>
>Washington Post reports the same news, quoting China's UN Ambassador Wange
>Guangya: "My government is under particular pressure not to give a blank
>check to the United States for the behavior of its forces."
>
>Full article at:
><http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64323-2004Jun23.html>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64323-2004Jun23.html
>
>Regards,
>
>Shantha



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 14 2007 - 20:45:32 PST