The first part of this work (Chapter 2-3) will provide the relevant fact-based introduction necessary to contextually the phenomena of “non-sururing” agreements. In particular, it will focus on the UNITED States` position vis-à-vis the ICC before, during and after the ICC status negotiations. The international agreements covered by Article 98, paragraph 2 of the Rome Statute are linked to several conditions, including Article 98 agreements, bilateral immunity agreements (BIA), impunity agreements and bilateral non-capitulation agreements. Since 2002, the United States has begun negotiations on these agreements with individual countries and has concluded at least 100 such agreements. The countries that sign these agreements with the United States agree not to leave the Americans to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. The Coalition for the International Criminal Court lists more than 100 agreements in its fact sheet on the status of bilateral U.S. immunity agreements. This chapter deals with U.S. bilateral non-capitulation agreements, which aim to prevent U.S. citizens from being handed over to the ICC.
Specifically, after the analysis of Article 98, paragraph 2 of the RS, which deals with competing international obligations (Article 12.2 and 12.3), the central question is whether bilateral non-capitulation agreements are compatible with this provision (Article 12.4). Finally, the last part examines whether the conclusion of such agreements and the resulting asymmetries reflect a case of legal neocolonialism in the context of the ICC (section 12.5). The second part of this work (Chapter 4-6) will provide a legal analysis of “non-sururs” agreements and answer the main question of this thesis. The main research question of this thesis is that the non-delivery agreements, as they are currently concluded by the United States, are they compatible with international law (including the ICC statute) and, if not, what the consequences would be “First, it will assess the validity of non-sovereign international agreements. Chapter 4 of this thesis argues that, in the current state of international law, non-remission agreements are not invalidated under international law. The “non-surrenders” agreements are highly controversial and have been the subject of significant debate in both the international community and the literature. However, in both cases, the approach is fragmentary and emotions rather than legal arguments seem to dominate the debate. This thesis aims to remedy these deficiencies by carrying out a comprehensive legal analysis of “non-sururs” agreements, without taking a position on their political or even moral “adequacy”. The United States has signed the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court with more than 100 states, including many states or signatories, what are technically called bilateral non-capitulation agreements, but better known as “Article 98,” according to the rome Statute provision, which it purports to invoke for its effect. The purpose of these agreements is to prevent the appearance of a U.S.
citizen or, to the extent that he or she is not a U.S. citizen, a U.S. official, an employee or a duty officer before the ICC. The legality of a State party to the Rome Statute that has not been extradited to the ICC under an “Article 98″ agreement with the United States is disputed by scientists. The legitimacy of a state or even the state that is a signatory is also the state applying for membership. It has even been claimed that the United States is acting illegally on the international stage by encouraging state parties and signatories to accept non-transfer. The section`s legal assessment of these arguments relates to a number of issues relating to treaty law or the law.dem of state responsibility and raises questions about their interaction or absence. Researchers are often interested in whether there is an immunity agreement between the United States and another country. This guide lists the Article 98 agreements in existing Thomas.gov contracts and all the additional agreements published in the latest edition of the treaty measures.
