ICC: Should American troops be immune from prosecution?

European Union member states will be allowed to strike deals with the United States, giving American troops limited immunity from prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Such deals will be permitted provided certain conditions are met, such as granting immunity to diplomats and soldiers only.

European states will also want a guarantee that Americans accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity will be dealt with by American courts.

The decision was announced after a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels on Monday.

Twelve countries have already signed deals promising not to hand over US citizens on their territory to the Court.

The US withdrew its signature from the ICC treaty last May, saying it feared politically-motivated trials.

Should Americans be immune from prosecutions at the ICC? Can the Court work without US support?

This Talking Point is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.

---

As a professor of law here in the US, I must say that it is unrealistic for anyone to expect the USA to join up without first making the following changes to the ICC: every defendant has the right to effective counsel; every defendant has the right to a trial by a jury of his/her peers; the right to directly confront witnesses against the defendant; the right to a speedy trial; and the right to appeal any "guilty" verdict. These are all rights we Americans have fought and died for for over 200 years and for which no provision is made by the ICC. Why should we be expected to give them up?
Bob, USA

The US Armed Forces has an excellent track record of prosecuting its members that commit war crimes

Bill, USA

This treaty will work quite well without the United States participating. Without the US, the treay will regulate the militaries in the world that truly need the regulation. The US Armed Forces has an excellent track record of prosecuting its members that commit war crimes and other crimes. Currently the 2 pilots who accidentally bombed Canadian troops in Afghanistan are brought up on Manslaughter charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Being a soldier myself, I am thankful that my Commander in Chief will not sign the ICC treaty which was penned by an organization which boasts the government of Sudan as a member of it's Human Rights Council.
Bill, USA

To Bill, USA, I agree that the US prosecuted the two pilots who bombed the Canadian soldiers but no action was taken against those who committed massacres in Vietnam (My Lai), Afghanistan (Mazar-e-sharif), Iraq and Iran. I think on the whole, it will be better to leave USA out so as to prevent the politicising of the ICC.
Pratap H, India

The deeper subtext to this debate is whether the United States believes that its own laws should be subordinated to international ones. In Europe we are used to this concept, recognising that no serious progress can be made without harmonisation of the rules by which nations and societies are bound. I have heard that the US constitution expressly forbids the state's powers to be handed over to a 'foreign' jurisdiction. If we are to make progress on a global level, the US constitution will inevitably have to be amended. The 'global' interest cannot be perceived as 'foreign' to any particular country's interests.
Nick Fraser, Germany

If the U.S. is unwilling to submit to being judged by the community of nations it shouldn't be allowed to be the policeman of the community of nations.
Patrick McGrath, US

I do not believe that American troops should have immunity from the ICC. However, I do believe that the US should provide adequate legal representation for any soldiers who are accused of war crimes. It bothers me that we seem to think that we, US soldiers, can be exempt from our humanitarian responsibilities.
Lawrence H LaVerne, USA

We do not recognize any law but American law.

Paul Fransella, USA

No one in the world or elsewhere has any authority over an American citizen except our government. This is because our government rules only by the concent of the governed, and said government has no authority to turn over any portion of this authority to any other entity. We do not recognize any law but American law.
Paul Fransella, USA

Not only should Americans be immune, they will be. The ICC violates at least four separate provisions of the US Constitution. No US President will ever sign it. No US Senate will ever ratify it. No US Court will ever recognise it. Most of all, the American people will never allow their constitutionally guaranteed rights and liberties to be thrown away just to please the EU. The ICC is dead. Bury it and move on.
MC, US/Finland

If the ICC can grant immunity to US diplomats and soldiers then why not Yugoslavian diplomats and soldiers? We may as well send Slobodan Mylosovic home to face trial in Yugoslavia. Is the International Criminal Court really an ICC if concessions are given to individual nations? It has become very clear that the USA now considers itself in isolation, both in act and in rhetoric. Situations such as this do little to cement relationships between the USA and the rest of the world. America needs to be a player on the big team rather than a dictatorial bully in the international arena. I see a complete split coming between the UN and the USA.
David, Denmark

Institutions like the ICC must be encouraged

David Bourne, UK

A glance at the proposals put forward for the election of Judges to the ICC shows that it would be near impossible for the court to be abused politicaly. The argument has little substance. If we are to eventually live in a free and fair world, then institutions like the ICC must be encouraged and the west, which still seems to think itself supirer to other nations must learn to understand that they are amoung equals and International Law applies to them as well as to their neighbours.
David Bourne, United Kingdom

Of course making exceptions of immunity for citizens of a particular state hampers the credibility and effectiveness of the ICC. It is possible to understand though why the US would like to get such immunity, being unwilling to "sacrifice its judicial sovereignty to an international body that does not recognize principles established by our constitution (William, USA)", forgetting that the US constitution is no sacred guideline for the rest of the world. It is also easy to see why countries that want to become mebers of NATO such as Rumania, and a state heavily relying on US support such as Israel would be prepared to sign a bilateral agreement with the US. What is very hard to understand is why the United Kingdom, Spain and Italy would want to make this exception for US citizens and sign a bilateral agreement.
Frans, Netherlands

If the US sacrificed its sovereignty to the ICC, the court would become nothing but a political tool for discontents. The proof is inherent in the "talking point" responses from persons who are not US citizens. I praise our president for standing tall on this now purely political matter.
RCB,USA

America, who was at the front line for demanding a criminal court for Bosnia and after WWII now wants to have nothing to do with such things. America has, and will continue to believe, that it and it alone is an exception to all the rules. I admire what they have done in terms of their own economic and military success, but they still believe they're "above" the rest of the world. They have no qualms about imposing their values on others, but are the first to stand up and react whenever someone seeks to impose their values on them.
David Hill, Canada

No other country is able or willing to act when necessary

Shawn, Washington, USA

Failure to recognise or accept that the USA is in a unique position in the world reflects a serious lack of understanding about world politics. Different rules do and should apply to the USA because no other country takes as many risks to keep conflicts from exploding around the world. The US has been forced into the role of "the world's policeman" because no other country is able or willing to act when necessary. If we alone have to accept this burden, then perhaps we alone should be exempt from the ICC.
Shawn, Washington, USA

The entire concept of an International Criminal Court, as high minded as it is, is doomed to failure on a number of levels. First of all, the United Nations, which was originally founded with equally high-minded intentions, has deteriorated into the swamp of political irrelevance by the petty manipulations of third world dictatorships that use it as a podium for their causes - at the expense of the rest of the world. If the UN can't keep its discourse at a level that is expected of such an organization, how long do you think it will take for the ICC to fall into the same pattern?
Shep Fargotstein, USA

This is one reason why I had reservations about the effectiveness and objectivity of the ICC. What is the point of having an organization that won't apply justice equally amongst its members? Why do I have a feeling that this organization will be used by certain powerful members to target and punish poor/weak countries? If justice won't be applied equally, then there is no point of having this organization.
R, Kenya

The US is above the law apparently. The current administration understands it has the power to do whatever it likes, and will twist all the necessary arms to make the ICC issue go away. When we get some more reasonable people in the White House the schoolyard bully might want to come back and play nicely.
Mike, Canada

Sure it can work. A whole lot of other bad ideas also "work". Case in point: the UN
Alan West, Toronto ON

It would cause uproar of apocalyptic proportions

Tom Wilhauk, USA

Our friends in Europe must understand that we Americans barely even trust each other, let alone foreigners, to dole out justice. If we allowed our soldiers or citizens to be prosecuted under foreign laws it would cause uproar of apocalyptic proportions here in the USA. No politician would take that risk. It would be politically less risky to simply withdraw our personnel and forces home and let everyone else fend for themselves.
Tom Wilhauk, USA

Since when does the EU have the right to make international law? Turn it around, let's say the ICC was in Washington and that we were deciding who could be exempt and who couldn't - get real!
SDP, USA

Sadly, I do not believe that an ICC can be as efficient or successful without the United States fully supportive of the process. With the major power in the world not backing it, the ICC will quite possibly turn into a regional bloc court and not be able to prosecute truly "international" criminals.
Evan H, United States

The ICC represents an intrusion on American legal sovereignty

John, USA

The US already has a strong and effective system of criminal law. The US doesn't need to apologize for not bowing its head to the ICC. The ICC represents an intrusion on American legal sovereignty.
John, USA

It is sad that the US does not want to take full part in the international criminal court. The US as a role model of the free world should be supporting such a court rather then opposing. Why would a western democratic nation fear for prosecution of it's citizens in events of war crimes and crimes against humanity? This is very puzzling as it goes against international customs and norms and furthermore against the ideals of the free world.
Hussein El Zein, Egypt

It's likely that the ICC will function efficiently despite the lack of support from the super-power, which is totally unwilling to sacrifice its judicial sovereignty to an international body that does not recognize principles established by our constitution. The Americans and Europeans should drop the issue.
William, USA

Law with exemptions is no law

Bumi Camara, Gambia

Is President Bush comparing what he is doing and what he wants others to do? No! He is crying for democracy in the world, but his international policies are a clear indication of how undemocratic he is. He should know that in as much as he governs the American people, he and the American people are governed by the international law. The US demanded that its citizens be exempt from prosecution at the tribunal is a total disobedience of the international law. The question is not if the ICC can work without America's support but how can the UN force America to comply to relevant international laws because law with exemptions is no law?
Bumi Camara, The Gambia

The International Criminal Court can function (and is already) functioning without US endorsement. However, the ICC will be more effective, more powerful and more legitimate with US participation, because of US substantial, financial support and contribution to the UN and her agencies. On the other hand, the ICC shouldn't back down or yield to the US's heavy-handed arm twisting, coercive, negotiating tactics and intimidating supranationalism, which she has used in rejecting the Kyoto Protocol, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, in delaying, stalling and, finally disbursing her nearly $1 billion debt in dues accumulation - all of which seem to undermine the principles of confederation manifest in the General Assembly's protocol.
Igonikon Jack, USA

US citizens are an extremely proud people who cherish their sovereignty. When global organizations are formed that demand nations "serve" them, they chip away at that nation's individualism. As a proud American, I often wonder how so many people of the world would have their own homeland relinquish this sovereignty so that some other outside organization can gain power over the people of that sovereign nation. I believe that behind many global organizations, there are ulterior motives. I have no problem with a case-by-case international court that is commissioned on an individual basis, but I do not believe the US or any other nation should agree to subject its citizens to some international rule of law that those people had no part in creating.
Stuart Owens, USA

The US can maintain an 'outlaw' status where US citizens have total immunity

Ulrich Buescher, Australia

Of course it can. The US can maintain an 'outlaw' status where US citizens have total immunity. I think it should be expanded into an organisation which will be a true United Nations free from US veto and pressure. That way the US will be happy and so will the rest of the world.
Ulrich Buescher, Australia

Should the ICC capture and try an American for a crime under what Americans would view as unfair or unjust circumstances, the world would face the prospect of a rescue attempt by military force and the confrontation between Europe and the US escalating to unthinkable levels. Should an American president fail to make such an attempt, he would pay the same price Jimmy Carter paid when he failed to rescue American hostages from Iran in 1980.
Mark, USA

Before this debate continues, we should be very clear as to what constitutes war crimes. In this war against terrorism it might well be necessary to fight fire with fire. New international laws are called for to cover the "codes of conduct" for this war.
Richard Murray, London, UK

A US exemption will be a major blow to international justice

Dimitris, Greece

A US exemption will be a major blow to international justice. Unfortunately the US adopts the "all countries are equal but some are more equal than others" paradigm quite often these days. It's sad to see the world's sole superpower acting like a spoilt kid.
Dimitris, Greece

If the American idea of international justice is Guantanamo Bay, it's no surprise they won't sign.
Mark Schofield, France

I think the Bush administration's resistance to the ICC is shameful. It would not have been possible had Clinton signed earlier and sent the treaty to the Senate for ratification. Many of my fellow Americans are still fuzzy about the ICC, but those informed are almost unanimous in our support for it and shamefaced over Bush's attitude. The EU should resist any immunity deals with the US and, if Bush tries to "unsign" the treaty, bring formal UN Charter violation charges before the International Court of Justice at The Hague.
Michael Westmoreland-White, USA

Yes it can technically work, yet it loses its meaning if the US does not sign up, being the most powerful country at the moment. No compromise should be made for the US. They should abide or stay out, and be pressured to join according to the regulations set for every nation. The US will do anything to preserve its international interests, just as they refuse to sign the agreement of mines and chemical weapons.
Pieter, UK/Belgium