| |
|
 |
|
 Bilateral
Immunity Agreements (BIA) |
| |
|
|
Bilateral Immunity Agreements (BIA) were an important aspect
of the Bush Administration's policy towards the ICC. The
agreements remain in force today, although the anti-ICC sanctions on nations refusing the agreements have been repealed.
Please read below for further information on the BIA campaign.
US Campaign
The Bush Administration conducted a vigorous campaign
of trying to conclude bilateral immunity agreements that will
remove US nationals from the reach of the Court. By the end of its term,
the Bush Administration had concluded BIAs with over 100 nations, the last with Montenegro on April 19, 2007. The administration
claimed that these agreements met the requirements of Article
98(2) of the ICC Statute. That article reads:
"The Court may not proceed with a request for surrender
which would require the requested State to act inconsistently
with its obligations under international agreements pursuant
to which the consent of a sending State is required to surrender
a person of that State to the Court, unless the Court can
first obtain the cooperation of the sending State for the
giving of consent for the surrender."
The United States pressed countries to agree to a draft
text that would prevent them from delivering any of a
broad group of persons—including both US and non-US
nationals—to the ICC. "Persons" are defined in the agreement
as,
"[C]urrent or former Government officials, employees
(including contractors), or military personnel or nationals
of one Party."
The Bush Administration claimed that these agreements were authorized by Article
98(2). In fact, Article 98(2) only addresses treaties between
countries covering persons that they have sent to each other
on official business. The Article's wording explicitly requires
the existence of a "sending state" relationship, such as when
US military and civilian personnel are sent to a receiving
state by the US government pursuant to Status of Forces or
Status of Mission agreements (SOFAs or SOMAs). Such treaties
often say that if such a person commits a crime in a country
where he or she has been sent, he or she is to be returned
to the sending country.
While many people have the impression that Article 98(2)
was drafted by the US to create a loophole from the jurisdiction
of the ICC, it actually grew out of the concerns of many states
that their existing obligations under surrender agreements,
especially SOFAs and SOMAs, could conflict with their obligation
to cooperate with the ICC. Therefore, parallel to Article
98(1), which addresses conflicts between the Statute and diplomatic
immunity, Article 98(2) was developed to resolve potential
conflicts in other kinds of situations where individuals have
entered a state's territory on official US business, whether
pursuant to a SOFA, SOMA, or perhaps even an extradition agreement.
The agreements the United States sought do not deal solely with the conduct
of official business. They apply to any of a wide variety
of persons who may be on the territory of either party for
any purpose at any time. Therefore, the Rome Statute does
not authorize these agreements and by adhering to them the
countries will violate their obligations to the Court under
the Statute.
Although the US said that it did not apply pressure
on states to sign non-surrender agreements, some US government
officials indicated that a state's unwillingness to sign
had affected US support for its entry into NATO and lead to
the cut off of US military aid. While some officials have
argued that the administration was obligated by the American
Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA) to withhold military
aid from states parties that do not conclude such agreements,
administration Spokesperson Reeker acknowledged that
ASPA "does not prevent the United States from providing military
assistance to any country when the president determines that
such assistance is important to the national interests." There
were reports in the media and by foreign officials and
NGOs of threats made toward smaller countries
to cut off non-military aid as well.
In a June 30, 2003 letter
to Secretary Powell, Human Rights Watch noted many examples
of American diplomats going far beyond the provisions of the
American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA) to pressure
small countries.
- Croatia: US Ambassador Lawrence Rossin
published an article in Croatia (also on the US Embassy
website) raising questions about the viability of Croatia's
accession to NATO if Zagreb does not sign a bilateral immunity
agreement.
- Bahamas: US Ambassador Richard Blankenship publicly
warned that if the Bahamas did not support the US position
on the ICC, a significant amount of US aid would be withheld,
including aid for paving and lighting an airport runway.
- The Caribbean Community (CARICOM): On May 23, it
was reported that US Assistant Secretary of State Stephen
Rademaker told foreign ministers of the CARICOM that they
would lose the benefits of the New Horizons program if they
did not sign agreements. The program, originally conceived
to provide hurricane relief to countries at risk from tropical
storms, now includes rural dentistry and veterinary programs.
- Comoros: According to a Comorese diplomat, the
United States informed his country that a previously promised
USAID project has been relocated to Djibouti following the
latter's signing of a bilateral agreement.
- Niger: According to a senior Ministry of Foreign
Affairs official, the United States threatened to suspend
cooperative development projects if Niger does not sign
a bilateral agreement.
- Honduras: Government officials and legislatures
stated that the United States threatened important non-military
assistance to Honduras if an agreement was not ratified
by July 1.
- Bosnia: Before Bosnia's signature and subsequent
ratification of an agreement, Bosnian Foreign Minister Mladen
Ivanic said that the US message was that it would be "very
difficult to continue military and other assistance" if
Bosnia did not sign. Bosnia was reported to have been told
that the Department of State would review "dispensable programs,"
including economic aid.
Human Rights Watch also pointed out cases where U.S. pressure is chilling
state interest in ratifying the ICC treaty:
- The Philippines: According to Philippine government
officials, quoted in the local media, the United States
has linked $30 million in additional military assistance
to prevent Manila from ratifying the ICC Treaty.
- Georgia: Government sources told Human Rights Watch that ratification
of the ICC Treaty is stalled in the President's office as
"a direct consequence of US pressure." Georgia has already
signed an immunity agreement.
US BIA Team
There was a core group within the State Department
consistently at the forefront of the US campaign against
the ICC. This team had been assembled by John Bolton, the
Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security.
It was used to staff the delegations that negotiate bilateral
immunity agreements with state parties to the Rome Statute.
From the beginning of the Bush Administration, Mr. Bolton
was given the authority to develop and pursue the US
policy of hostility towards the ICC. This reflects a political
decision by the Administration to satisfy the demands of an
important part of the President's political base. Mr. Bolton
represented this constituency in the Administration. In response
to the approach of the July 1, 2002 deadline established by the
American Servicemembers' Protection Act for cutting off military
assistance to countries that did not sign the immunity agreements,
the US has called on Bolton's team with greater frequency.
Notable and senior members included Patricia McNerney and Steven
Rademaker, who had served as republican staff members in
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House International
Relations Committee, respectively. Click here
to see a more detailed overview of the team's membership.
Subsequent Developments
- In an effort to stave off criticism on U.S. efforts to sign a bilateral immunity agreement (BIA) with Kenya, Amb. William Bellamy offered insight on the U.S. position on BIAs. Click here for commentary from Amnesty International, Parliamentarians for Global Action, and analysis on BIA agreements by former U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues, David Scheffer.
- As of May 3, 2005, the US Government reported 100
agreements. Citizens for Global Solutions reported at that time that
about $6.2 million was being withheld from U.S. allies.
See Breakdown
of Countries Concluding and Refusing to Conclude BIAS,
including amount of funds at stake.
- Click here for an excellent November 26, 2005 editorial on the effects that BIAs in combination with the American Servicemembers' Protection Act and the Nethercutt Amendment on countries in Latin America.
- CICC reported that, as of May 18, 2005, the US State Department
reported 100 bilateral immunity agreements, with over 91
publicly known. 45 countries have publicly refused signing,
and 57 of 99 States Parties to the ICC Statute had not
signed (of which 21 have lost US aid). See Status
of US Bilateral Immunity Agreements.
- On July 1, 2003, President Bush announced suspension in
military aid to 35 state parties to the ICC. Thereafter,
President Bush announced waivers
for the ASPA prohibition on US military assistance to numerous
ICC parties and Nethercutt Amendment prohibitions on Economic Support Founds (ESF).
- In response to the European Union common policy
opposing bilateral immunity agreements (BIAs) and
difficulties faced by the US in convincing countries to
sign on, in June 2003 "[t]he Bush administration charged
the European Union with actively undermining US efforts
to shield Americans from prosecution by the International
Criminal Court and warned that the impact on transatlantic
relations will be "very damaging" if the EU does not stop."
See Washington
Post.
Countries Concluding Bilateral
Agreements or Executive Agreements
The below table lists 102 Bilateral Immunity Agreements which have been reported since 2004. Ninety-five such agreements are in force, according to a US Department of State
List of Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States in Force on January 1, 2009.
Please note that in the following table:
- "Agreement in force" indicates ratification of
BIA or signature of executive agreement
- "Permanent waiver" indicates that President Bush
has declared that the country will continue to receive aid
and is contingent on the continuation in force of the BIA
- "Reciprocal" indicates that the US has agreed not
to surrender nationals of this country to the ICC
- "Non-reciprocal" indicates that the agreement does not address
the surrender of nationals of this country by the US to the ICC
- "Reciprocity unknown" indicates that the agreement is not available
and thus it cannot be confirmed whether the agreement addresses
the surrender of nationals of this country by the US to the ICC
- "Unconfirmed" indicates that the agreement has
not been disclosed by the State Department or the country
requested that the agreement not be revealed
- Many governments have publicly indicated they are unlikely
to sign such an agreement, some of which include Brazil,
Canada, Costa Rica, Croatia, France, Finland, Germany, Mali, Malta,
Namibia, Paraguay, Peru, Samoa, South Africa, Tanzania,
Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela.
Click on the name of the country to see the agreement, if available.
| Country |
Signatory/State Party to Rome Statute |
Date of Agreement |
Details |
| Afghanistan |
State Party |
9/20/02 |
Reciprocity unknown; Agreement in force; Permanent waiver |
| Albania |
State Party |
5/2/03 |
Non-reciprocal; Agreement in force; Permanent waiver |
| Algeria |
Non State Party |
4/6/04; 4/13/04 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force |
| Angola |
Signatory |
5/2/05 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force |
| Antigua and Barbuda |
State Party |
9/29/03 |
Non-reciprocal; Agreement in force; Permanent Waiver |
| Armenia |
Non State Party |
10/16/04 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force |
| Azerbaijan |
Non State Party |
2/26/03 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force |
| Bahrain |
State Party |
2/6/03 |
Unconfirmed |
| Bangladesh |
Signatory |
8/18/03 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force |
| Belize |
State Party |
12/8/03 |
Non-reciprocal; Agreement in force; Permanent waiver |
| Benin |
State Party |
7/25/05 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force; Permanent waiver |
| Bhutan |
Non State Party |
5/2/03 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force |
| Bolivia |
State Party |
5/19/03 |
Unconfirmed; Originally ASPA military aid cut off waived on July
1, 2003 until January 1, 2004 |
| Bosnia and Herzegovina |
State Party |
5/16/03 |
Non-reciprocal; Agreement in force; Permanent waiver |
| Botswana |
State Party |
6/30/03 |
Non-reciprocal; Agreement in force; Permanent waiver |
| Brunei |
Non State Party |
2/3/04; 3/3/04 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force |
| Burkina Faso |
State Party |
10/2/03; 10/5/03 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force; Permanent waiver |
| Burundi |
State Party |
7/5/03 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force; Permanent waiver |
| Cambodia |
State Party |
6/27/03 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force; Permanent waiver |
| Cameroon |
Non State Party |
12/1/03 |
Non-reciprocal; Agreement in force |
| Cape Verde |
Non State Party |
4/16/04 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force |
| Central African Republic |
State Party |
1/13/04; 1/19/04 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force; Permanent waiver |
| Chad |
State Party |
6/26/03; 6/30/03 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force |
| Colombia |
State Party |
9/17/03 |
Non-reciprocal; Agreement in force; Permanent waiver |
| The Comoros |
State Party |
6/30/04 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force; Permanent Waiver |
| Democratic Republic of the Congo |
State Party |
3/19/03 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force; Permanent waiver |
| Congo-Brazzaville (Republic of the Congo) |
State Party |
6/2/04 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force; Permanent waiver |
| Cote d'Ivoire |
Signatory |
6/30/03 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force |
| Djibouti |
State Party |
1/24/03 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force; Permanent waiver |
| Dominica |
State Party |
5/10/04 |
Non-reciprocal; Agreement in force; Permanent Waiver |
| Dominican Republic |
State Party |
9/13/02 |
Reciprocity unknown; Agreement in force; Permanent waiver |
| East Timor (Timor-Leste) |
State Party |
8/23/02 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force; Permanent waiver |
| Egypt |
Signatory |
3/5/03 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force |
| Equatorial Guinea |
Non State Party |
9/25/03 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force |
| El Salvador |
Non State Party |
10/25/02 |
Unconfirmed |
| Eritrea |
Signatory |
7/8/04 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force |
| Ethiopia |
Non State Party |
10/8/04 |
Unconfirmed |
| Fiji |
State Party |
12/17/03 |
Non-reciprocal; Agreement in force; Permanent waiver |
| Gabon |
State Party |
2/26/03; 4/15/03 |
Reciprocity unknown; Agreement in force; Permanent waiver |
| Gambia |
State Party |
10/5/02 |
Reciprocity unknown; Agreement in force; Permanent waiver |
| Georgia |
State Party |
2/10/03 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force; Permanent waiver |
| Ghana |
State Party |
4/17/03 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force; Permanent waiver |
| Grenada |
Non State Party |
3/11/04 |
Non-reciprocal; Agreement in force |
| Guinea |
State Party |
8/23/03 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force; Permanent waiver |
| Guinea Bissau |
Non State Party |
1/28/05; 2/2/05 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force; Permanent waiver |
| Guyana |
State Party |
12/11/03 |
Non-reciprocal; Agreement in force; Permanent Waiver |
| Haiti |
Signatory |
1/12/04 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force |
| Honduras |
State Party |
9/19/02 |
Reciprocity unknown; Agreement in force; Permanent waiver |
| India |
Non State Party |
12/26/02 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force |
| Israel |
Signatory |
8/4/02 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force |
| Kazakhstan |
Non State Party |
9/22/03 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force |
| Kiribati |
Non State Party |
3/4/04 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force |
| Kuwait |
Signatory |
11/20/02 |
Unconfirmed |
| Kyrgyzstan |
State Party |
12/8/03 |
Unconfirmed |
| Laos |
Non State Party |
12/24/03 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force |
| Lesotho |
State Party |
6/21/06 |
Non-reciprocal; Agreement in force |
| Liberia |
State Party |
10/8/03 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force; Permanent waiver |
| Macedonia, FYR |
State Party |
6/30/03 |
Non-reciprocal; Agreement in force; Permanent waiver |
| Madagascar |
Signatory |
4/23/03 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force |
| Malawi |
State Party |
9/23/03 |
Non-reciprocal; Agreement in force; Permanent Waiver |
| Maldives |
Non State Party |
4/8/03; 4/10/03 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force |
| Marshall Islands |
State Party |
9/10/02 |
Reciprocity unknown; Agreement in force |
| Mauritania |
Non State Party |
9/17/02 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force |
| Mauritius |
State Party |
6/25/03 |
Reciprocal; Agreement must be approved at the parliamentary level before becoming
binding; Permanent waiver |
| Micronesia |
Non State Party |
9/24/02 |
Reciprocity unknown; Agreement in force |
| Mongolia |
State Party |
6/6/03 |
Non-reciprocal; Agreement in force; Permanent waiver |
| Montenegro |
State Party |
4/17/07; 4/19/07 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force; Permanent waiver |
| Morocco |
Signatory |
9/24/03 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force |
| Mozambique |
Signatory |
6/24/03 |
Non-reciprocal; Agreement in force |
| Nauru |
State Party |
2/26/03 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force |
| Nepal |
Non State Party |
12/31/02 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force |
| Nicaragua |
Non State Party |
6/4/03 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force |
| Nigeria |
State Party |
6/30/03 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force; Permanent waiver |
| Oman |
Non State Party |
7/26/04; 8/1/04 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force |
| Pakistan |
Non State Party |
7/21/03 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force |
| Palau |
Non State Party |
9/13/02 |
Reciprocity unknown; Agreement in force |
| Panama |
State Party |
6/23/03 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force; Permanent waiver |
| Papua New Guinea |
Non State Party |
9/30/04 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force |
| Philippines |
Signatory |
5/9/03; 5/13/03 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force |
| Romania |
State Party |
8/1/02 |
Non-reciprocal; US does not acknowledge that agreement is in force; ASPA military aid cut off waived on July 1, 2003 until November
1, 2003; 6-month extension on November 1, 2003 |
| Rwanda |
Non State Party |
3/4/03 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force |
| Saint Kitts and Nevis |
State Party |
1/31/05 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force; Permanent waiver |
| Sao Tome and Principe |
Non State Party |
11/6/03; 11/12/03 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force |
| Senegal |
State Party |
6/19/03 |
Non-reciprocal; Agreement in force; Permanent waiver |
| Seychelles |
State Party |
6/4/03 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force |
| Sierra Leone |
State Party |
3/31/03 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force; Permanent waiver |
| Singapore |
Non State Party |
10/17/03 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force |
| Solomon Islands |
Signatory |
9/19/03 |
Non-reciprocal; Agreement in force |
| Sri Lanka |
Non State Party |
11/22/02 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force |
| Swaziland |
Non State Party |
5/10/06 |
Non-reciprocal; Agreement in force |
| Tajikistan |
State Party |
8/26/02 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force; Permanent waiver |
| Thailand |
Signatory |
6/3/03 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force |
| Togo |
Non State Party |
6/13/03 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force |
| Tonga |
Non State Party |
3/21/03 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force |
| Tunisia |
Non State Party |
6/5/03 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force |
| Turkmenistan |
Non State Party |
12/25/03 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force |
| Tuvalu |
Non State Party |
9/19/02; 1/9/03 |
Reciprocity unknown; Agreement in force |
| Uganda |
State Party |
6/12/03 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force; Permanent waiver |
| United Arab Emirates |
Non State Party |
1/27/04; 2/15/04 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force |
| Uzbekistan |
Signatory |
9/18/02 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force |
| Yemen |
Non State Party |
12/10/03; 12/18/03 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force |
| Zambia |
State Party |
7/1/03 |
Reciprocal; Agreement in force; Permanent waiver |
Presidential Waivers Granted
 |
Presidential
Determination No. 2009-14, Waiving the Prohibition on the Use of Economic Support Funds with
Respect to Various Parties to the Rome Statute Establishing the International Criminal Court, January 16, 2009 (Barbados, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Cyprus,
Ecuador, Kenya, Mali, Mexico, Namibia, Niger, Paraguay, Peru, Samoa, South Africa, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Tanzania, and Trinidad and Tobago [FY 2008]). |
|
Presidential
Determination No. 2008-21, Waiving the Prohibition on the Use of Economic Support Funds with
Respect to Various Parties to the Rome Statute Establishing the International Criminal Court, June 20, 2008 (Bolivia, Costa Rica, Cyprus,
Ecuador, Kenya, Mali, Mexico, Namibia, Niger, Paraguay, Peru, Samoa, South Africa, and Tanzania [FY 2007]). |
|
Memorandum
for the Secretary of State, Certification Concerning U.S. Participation
in the United Nations-African Union Mission
in Darfur Under Section 2005 of the American
Servicemembers' Protection Act, March 26, 2008. |
|
Memorandum for the Secretary of State, Waiving Prohibition on
United States Military Assistance, August 31, 2007 (Montenegro [permanent]). |
|
Memorandum for the Secretary of State, Waiving the Prohibition on the Use of Fiscal Year 2006 Economic Support Funds with
Respect to Various Parties to the Rome Statute Establishing the International Criminal Court, November 28, 2006 (Bolivia, Costa Rica, Cyprus,
Ecuador, Kenya, Mali, Mexico, Namibia, Niger, Paraguay, Peru, Samoa, South Africa, and Tanzania [FY 2006]). |
|
Memorandum for the Secretary of State, Waiving Prohibition on
United States Military Assistance, November 22, 2006 (Comoros and Saint Kitts and Nevis [permanent]). |
|
Memorandum for the Secretary of State, Waiving Prohibition on
United States Military Assistance, October 2, 2006 (Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Croatia, Ecuador, Kenya, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Namibia, Niger, Paraguay, Peru, Samoa, Serbia, South Africa, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, and Uruguay [permanent]). |
|
Memorandum
for the Secretary of State, Certification Concerning
US Participation in the United Nations Stabilization
Mission in Haiti Consistent with Section 2005 of the
American Servicemembers' Protection Act, June 14, 2004. |
|
Presidential
Determination No. 2004-31, Waiving Prohibition on
United States Military Assistance, May 26, 2004 (Burkina
Faso and Dominica [permanent]). |
|
Presidential
Determination No. 2004-27, Waiving Prohibition on
United States Military Assistance to Parties to the
Rome Statute Establishing the International Criminal
Court, April 6, 2004. (Central African Republic and
Guinea [permanent].) |
|
Presidential
Determination No. 2004-17, Waiving Prohibition on
United States Military Assistance to Parties to the
Rome Statute Establishing the International Criminal
Court, December 30, 2003. (Belize, Former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia, Panama, and Fiji [permanent]) |
|
Presidential
Determination No. 2004-9, Waiving Prohibition on
United States Military Assistance to Parties to the
Rome Statute Establishing the International Criminal
Court, November 21, 2003. (Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, Slovakia, and Slovenia, with respect to military
assistance for only certain specific projects the President
has decided are needed to support the process of integration
of these countries into NATO, or to support Operation
"Enduring Freedom" or Operation "Iraqi Freedom.") |
|
Presidential
Determination No. 2003-11, Waiving Prohibition on
United States Military Assistance to Parties to the
Rome Statute Establishing the International Criminal
Court, November 1, 2003. (Angigua and Barbuda, Bostswana,
East Timor, Ghana, Malawi, Nigeria, and Uganda [permanent];
Romania [six months]) |
|
Presidential
Determination No. 2004-30, Waiving Prohibition on
United States Military Assistance to Parties to the
Rome Statute Establishing the International Criminal
Court, October 6, 2003. (Colombia [permanent]) |
|
Presidential
Determination No. 2003-40, Waiving Prohibition on
United States Military Assistance to Parties to the
Rome Statute Establishing the International Criminal
Court, September 24, 2003. (Afghanistan, Democratic
Republic of the Congo, Georgia, and Honduras [permanent]) |
|
Presidential
Determination No. 2003-28, Waiving Prohibition on
United States Military Assistance to Parties to the
Rome Statute, July 29, 2003. (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Djibouti, Mauritius, and Zambia [permanent]) |
|
Presidential
Determination No. 2003-27, Waiving Prohibition on
United States Military Assistance to Parties to the
Rome Statute Establishing the International Criminal
Court, July 1, 2003. (Gabon, the Gambia, Mongolia, Senegal,
Sierra Leone, and Tajikistan [permanent]; Afghanistan,
Djibouti, Democratic Republic of Congo, East Timor,
Ghana, Honduras, and Romania [November 1, 2003]; Albania,
Bolivia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Botswana, Former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia, Mauritius, Nigeria, Panama, and
Uganda [January 1, 2004]) |
|
World
Federalist Association Factsheet: Breakdown of Countries
Granted Waivers Compared to Those Concluding BIAs |
Texts of Bilateral Agreements
The texts of the actual agreements with specific countries, if available, are provided above.
International Reaction
Click here to read about
the international reaction to US efforts to conclude bilateral
immunity agreements.
Official US Statements
|
Ambassador
Larry Napper, OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting,
Warsaw, Poland, October 8, 2004, responded to comments
on the US bilateral immunity campaign, particularly
referencing the EU position on the ICC. |
|
Adam
Ereli, Deputy Spokesman, Department of State Daily Press
Briefing, November 3, 2003, answering a question
as to whether national interest waivers will be granted
for countries contributing to the Iraq war or war on
terror. |
|
John
R. Bolton, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International
Security, Remarks at the American Enterprise Institute,
"American Justice and the International Criminal Court,"
November 3, 2003 |
|
Suspension
of Military Assistance to Colombia (Taken Question),
Office of the Spokesman, September 30, 2003 |
|
Lincoln
P. Bloomfield, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Political-Military
Affairs, Remarks to the Parliamentarians for Global
Action, Consultative Assembly of Parliamentarians
for the ICC and the Rule of Law United Nations, New
York, September 12, 2003 |
|
Secretary
Rumsfeld Is Interviewed on TV Caracol in Bogota, Columbia,
as Released by the Department of Defense, August
19, 2003, discussing BIAs and Colombia |
|
Remarks
of Lincoln Bloomfield, Assistant Secretary for Political-Military
Affairs (reporting to John Bolton), July 17, 2003,
explaining the US approach to the ICC and BIAs. |
|
Excerpt
from Interview with Secretary Powell by the South African
Broadcasting Corp., July 10, 2003. |
|
Richard
Boucher, Spokesman, Department of State Daily Press
Briefing, July 3, 2003, reacting reports of suspension
of military aid. |
|
Richard
Boucher, Spokesman, Department of State Daily Press
Briefing, July 2, 2003, reacting reports of suspension
of military aid. |
|
Richard
Boucher, Spokesman, Department of State Daily Press
Briefing, July 1, 2003, reacting reports of suspension
of military aid. |
|
Ari
Fleischer, Spokesman, White House Daily Press Briefing,
July 1, 2003, reacting to reports that 50 countries
had been declared ineligible for military aid. |
|
Richard
Boucher, Spokesman, Department of State Daily Press
Briefing, June 30, 2003, reacting to question about
approach of July 1 ASPA funding cutt-off deadline. |
|
Richard
Boucher, Spokesman, Department of State Daily Press
Briefing, June 12, 2003, reacting to question about
approach of July 1 ASPA funding cutt-off deadline |
|
Philip
Reeker, Deputy Spokesman, Department of State Daily
Press Briefing, June 10, 2003, reacting to question
about reported warning given to EU not to "interfere"
in BIA negotiations. |
|
Excerpt
from Press Conference with Secretary of State Colin
Powell, Bogotý, Colombia, December 4, 2002, explaining
Colombia's rejection of the US-proposed bilateral immunity
agreement. |
|
News
Briefing by Ari Fleischer, White House Press Secretary,
October 10, 2002, explaining US dissatisfaction
with EU guidlines for Article 98(2) agreements. |
|
Richard
Boucher, Spokesman, Department of State Daily Press
Briefing, October 1, 2002, reacting to announcement
of EU guidlines for Article 98(2) agreements. |
|
President
Bush on bilateral immunity agreements, September 30,
2002, remarks prior to discussions with president
Alvaro Uribe of Colombia and an exchange with reporters |
|
Press
briefing with Pierre-Richard Prosper, U.S. Ambassador-at
Large for War Crimes Issues, on progress with bilateral
immunity agreements (London, UK), September 24, 2002 |
|
Federal
News Service, State Department Regular Briefing with
Philip Reeker, Deputy Department Spokesman, August 12-13,
2002 |
|
U.S.
and Romania Sign Article 98 Agreement, Press Statement,
Philip T. Reeker, Deputy Spokesman, August 1, 2002 |
|
Richard
Boucher, Spokesman, Department of State Daily Press
Briefing, July 25, 2002, discussing ongoing US negotiation
of bilateral immunity agreements |
|
Secretary
of Defense Rumsfeld, Defense Department Operational
Update Briefing June 26, 2002, discussing US desire
to use the Security Council to obtain exemptions for
its servicemembers, US pursuit of bilateral immunity
agreements, and implying that the Court may somehow
be used by terrorists against the US |
Legal and Policy Analysis
|
World
Federalist Association Factsheet: Effects of the Article
98 Campaign, December 2003 |
|
World
Federalist Association Factsheet: Breakdown of Countries,
September 23, 2003 |
|
CICC
documents |
|
Joint
Opinion, In the Matter of the Statute of the International
Criminal Court and in the Matter of Bilateral Agreements
Sought by the United States Under Article 98(2) of the
Statute, James Crawford SC, Philippe Sands QC, Ralph
Wilde, June 2003 |
|
Fédération
Internationale des Ligues des Droits de L'Homme (FIDH),
No to American Exceptionalism — Under Cover of
the War Against Terrorism, a Destructive US Offensive
Against the ICC, December 2002, an authoritative
view of the campaign from the European perspective |
|
Amnesty
International, International Criminal Court: The need
for the European Union to take more effective steps
to prevent members from signing US impunity agreements,
October 10, 2002 |
|
Coalition
for the International Criminal Court (CICC) Secretariat,
Bilateral agreements proposed by US government (a legal
analysis), August 23, 2002 |
|
Amnesty
International, International Criminal Court: US efforts
to obtain impunity for genocide, crimes against humanity
and war crimes, August 2002 |
|
Human Rights Watch,
"United States Efforts to Undermine the International
Criminal Court": Article 98 Agreements, August 2, 2002 |
|
Human Rights Watch,
"United States Efforts to Undermine the International
Criminal Court": Article 98(2) Agreements, July 9, 2002 |
|
|
|
|
