International Criminal Court negotiation simulation:
You will form teams of 2-3 people each, representing the interests described below. In addition to my description of each country=s negotiating position, you may use other information you have gleaned over time as to the interests at stake (but please don=t spend time looking up country=s positions - you don=t have time.) You are to negotiate on the basis of the draft statute in the reading materials. The object of the negotiating exercise is only to remove the brackets from the text, i.e. don=t start proposing an entirely new structure for the court at this late date. You should focus on the following issues:
jurisdiction and trigger mechanisms -- arts. 6-11 + further options package
You will be attempting to come to agreement on two questions: 1. Who should be able to trigger an investigation by the prosecutor and a subsequent indictment and under what circumstances? Take as a given that the Court will consider situations involving genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes (i.e. do not worry about their definitions). 2. What prerequisites, if any, should there be for the court to have jurisdiction over an individual (i.e. that their state of nationality consents, that other states consent, or no consent of any state required)?
teams
U.S.: Caitlin Henry, Emily Rosendahl, Maria Escobar-Gutierrez, Ashley Chow U.K.: Tara Roberts, Navdeep Punia, Kim Prooij France: Lukas Prassinos, Yui Nishi, Emily Rosenfelt Mexico: Camila Nieves, Casey Epp, Marchela Iahdjian China: Ashkan Yekrangi, Deanna Dyer, Ashley Dodson India: Anahita Razmazma, Jay Chen, Sarah de Mol Iraq: Ciaran Pratt, Bettina Schlegel, Leon Kruse Germany: Victoria Ratnikova, Leah Price Chen, Alex Panutich South Africa: Keeley Monroe, Rowena Collins, Robert Webb NGO Coalition: Ambika Subramony, Meghan Dunn, Allison Wright
Note: NGOs cannot vote but can participate in all negotiating sessions.
Negotiating Instructions to diplomats
2 U.S.: The Clinton Administrations State Department has been supportive of the idea of an ICC as an extension of U.S. support for the Ad-Hoc Tribunals, trial of Pol Pot, etc. It would be an embarrassment for the U.S. not to be able to sign a treaty in light of that support. However, the Pentagon is insisting that the U.S. reserve a special role for itself as the world=s remaining military superpower. In particular, the Defense Dept. expresses concern that U.S. soldiers and commanders based both at home and at overseas bases might be subject to the Court=s jurisdiction based on Abogus@ or dubious complaints over war crimes committed during the course of peacekeeping and Apeacemaking@ military operations, including acts like the recent retaliatory raids against a Sudanese chemical weapons plant. They want to make absolutely sure no U.S. soldier or commander is prosecuted without the consent of the U.S., by ensuring a permanent U.S. veto over prosecutions. At the same time, they would like the ICC=s jurisdiction to cover incidents like Saddam Hussein=s invasion of Kuwait, should such incidents occur in the future. The U.S. is a permanent member of the Security Council, and sees the Security Council (and the veto) as one guarantee that its leaders will not be prosecuted without its consent. It has been hard to get the U.S. to speak with one voice given different positions of State and Defense and the Commander-in-Chiefs preoccupation with Monica Lewinsky.
U.K.: The U.K. contributes troops to peacekeeping forces in central Europe, which it is interested in protecting, and is a permanent member of the Security Council. It has also been supportive of the Ad-hoc Tribunals, although it would not support a treaty that would subject its treatment of IRA operatives in Northern Ireland to outside review. It also has a strong NGO community at home to contend with, and is interested in marking the difference between the previous Conservative era and the current Labor (Blair) government. A favorable outcome to the treaty negotiation is important to achieve its domestic political goals. At the same time, the U.K. wants to protect its special relationship with the U.S., and in particular the warm relations between the Clinton and Blair governments.
France: France contributes significant troops to peacekeeping operations in Europe, and has also sent troops to support favored governments throughout Africa (including at one point the Hutu- led government in Rwanda, the government of the Central African Republic, Mobutu in Zaire, etc.) It is a permanent member of the Security Council. France has tried former Nazis and local collaborators on crimes against humanity charges in its national courts. It is concerned about excessive U.S. influence both on the substance of the treaty and through imposing common law- type procedures which the French consider inferior to their own civil law system, which features a prosecutor-type investigating magistrate. Having lived through the horrors of the Nazi period, it has a special interest in protecting victims. Its positions on jurisdictional issues have wavered throughout the course of negotiations.
Germany: has been one of the strongest supporters of a strong, independent court with far- reaching powers. The Germans refer to their own historical experience with Nazism as the best example of the importance of individual attribution of responsibility in confronting a past legacy. They also do not have a large army or troops stationed abroad. On the other hand, they have been the main host to thousands of refugees from the former Yugoslavia=s wars, and now believe
3 the refugees will not go home while warlords are still at large. They are also host to U.S. military bases which bring in considerable revenue. They are not now a permanent member of the Security Council, although a number of U.N. reform proposals have suggested they be included in an expanded version. They have paid out billions of dollars in reparations to victims of the Holocaust.
India: as the worlds largest democracy, India would like to play a more prominent role on the world stage and resents the fact that it is not a permanent member of the Security Council despite its size. It has had experience with both terrorism and separatism, and is interested in an international tribunal to help with trials of insurgents responsible for war crimes in Kashmir. It has an independent judiciary. India is very jealous of its sovereignty, suspicious of the motives of ex- and neo-colonial powers, and determined not to let the Security Council be the main actor here. It will oppose a role for the Security Council in a court, absent SC reform. However, it would also like to be on an expanded Security Council. It is also, given the Bhopal incident, very concerned about chemical and biological weapons.
Iraq: would like to see U.S. crimes during and after the Gulf War subject to ICC jurisdiction, but wants to make sure its own leaders could not be brought before the ICC for their actions either during that war or a future similar war. It is especially interested in ensuring that efforts to put down internal rebellions from Kurds or others are not subject to ICC jurisdiction. Wants to be seen as a cooperative player on the international diplomatic scene to facilitate Security Council reconsideration of sanctions against Iraq, but deeply resents the SC as biased. Is already being forced to pay large reparations to victims of the Kuwaiti invasion by the U.N., and feels this process is very unjust. Also, does not want to do anything that would alienate fundamentalist Islamic regimes in neighboring states, and sees itself as something of a spokesperson for the Islamic states.
Mexico: extremely jealous of its sovereignty, Mexico remembers a long history of U.S. invasions and U.S. domination. It is particularly opposed to any role for the Security Council in deciding which cases should go before the ICC, arguing that a permanent-5 veto in effect insulates the citizens of five countries from any potential prosecution and so is unfair. Also opposed to any scrutiny of its handling of internal conflicts in Chiapas and elsewhere. At the same time, Mexico has always been a haven for refugees and Mexico supports the general idea of an international mechanism for accountability. But it doesn=t want outside scrutiny of the adequacy of its domestic institutions. Wants to make sure the U.S. and other big powers are held accountable for Aimperialist@ acts abroad.
China: like Mexico, extremely jealous of its sovereignty. Considers itself a world power in expansion, and would like to play a commensurate role in drafting this treaty. Permanent member of the Security Council, so likes SC control (and Chinese veto). Does not want any international supervision over its treatment of minorities and dissidents, or of Tibet. Would like to see the Japanese pay reparations for WWII atrocities, but does not want to have to pay any itself. Wants to curb the ability of the U.S. to act unilaterally in situations of conflict,
4 remembering U.S. role in Southeast Asia. Does not want prosecution of Khmer Rouge leaders in Cambodia. Believes that because of clear Western biases in international law (especially human rights law) ICC should only be able to act in cases where the state consents.
South Africa: very supportive of the idea of international justice, a member of the Alike-minded group.@ Remembers international role in dismantling of apartheid. Has extensive reparations program in place and supportive of international rules on reparations. Would like to see a strong and effective court. Does not want an ICC to be able to second-guess domestic decisions like the South African amnesty. At the same time, believes individual accountability is important in deterring the dictators who have plagued the African continent. Would like to be seen as a Aplayer@ able to bridge gaps between the developed and developing countries.
NGO Coalition: an ad-hoc group of human rights organizations from around the world. Strong supporter of a strong, effective and independent court, including broad substantive provisions, an independent prosecutor able to act on his own, and no ability for big states to block action. Good access to U.S. State Department and good relations on other fronts; bad relationship to Defense Dept.