Bilateral Immunity Agreements

Until 2009, with Obama in office, laws were reduced unless bibi were no longer in effect; the nethercutt amendment had not been renewed and the restrictions imposed by the ASPA had already been lifted under Bush. [63] As of this year, 102 BIBI had been signed, although it is not known how many were legally binding and the United States had stopped pursuing other agreements. [63] Contrary to assurances given by senior U.S. officials, the United States does not respect the rights of states that have ratified the Rome Statute or acceded to the Statute. As with the Security Council`s request for a waiver for ICC peacekeepers, the U.S. government is using coercive tactics to obtain immunity from ICC jurisdiction for its nationals. U.S. officials have publicly threatened economic sanctions such as ending military aid if countries do not sign the agreement. In several cases, the media reported on the United States. Provide significant financial envelopes to countries at the time of signing bilateral immunity agreements. Q: What bilateral immunity agreements are the U.S. seeking? The Court may not pursue a request for surrender which would compel the requested State to act in contradiction with its obligations under international agreements which require the agreement of a sending State to surrender a person of that State to the Court, unless the Court may first seek the cooperation of the sending State in giving its consent to surrender. The Bush administration has waged a vigorous campaign to carry out the BIBI in order to remove American citizens from the reach of the Court.

By the end of its term, the Bush administration had concluded BIBI with more than 100 nations, the last with Montenegro on April 19, 2007. The government claimed that these agreements met the requirements of Article 98(2) of the Rome Statute of the ICC: Romania was one of the first countries to sign an agreement with the United States under Article 98. In response to Romania`s action, the European Union has called on candidate countries not to sign Article 98 agreements with the United States until EU ministers have met to agree on a common position. In September 2002, the Council of the European Union adopted a common position authorising Member States to conclude agreements with the United States in accordance with Article 98, but only in respect of United States military personnel, United States diplomatic or consular officials and extradited persons sent to their territory by the United States with their permission; not the general protection of U.S. nationals that the U.S. was seeking. In addition, the common position provided that any person protected by such agreements from prosecution by the ICC should be prosecuted by the United States. This was in line with the EU`s initial position that Article 98 agreements were allowed to cover these restricted categories of people, but not all citizens of a state. [69] Although the U.S. has said it does not exert any pressure on states to sign non-surrender agreements, some U.S. government officials have said that a state`s unwillingness to sign has affected U.S. support for its NATO membership and has resulted in the postponement of U.S.

military aid. . . .