2003 Press Releases

US Ambassador Discusses the Article 98 Agreement

April 15, 2003

Freetown, Sierra Leone

Contact: Kevin Green
US Embassy
Tel. 226-481

In response to recent criticism appearing in a news article sponsored by Campaign for Good Governance, US Ambassador to Sierra Leone, H.E. Peter R. Chaveas, discusses below the Article 98 Agreement recently concluded between the United States and Sierra Leone.  Ambassador Chaveas remarks as follows:

“Sierra Leone is simply exercising its sovereign right under the Rome Statute in agreeing not to subject US citizens to jurisdictional claims to which the US has not consented.  The very real danger is that US citizens would become subject to baseless, politically motivated prosecutions.”  

“The governments of Sierra Leone and the US recognize that under Article 98, any US citizen still may be arrested, prosecuted and punished for international crimes under the laws of either Sierra Leone, the US, or both.  That is the important point.  To label the agreement as one of “impunity”, is not only hyperbole, but misleading.  The United States respects the decision of State Parties to join the International Criminal Court (ICC) but they in turn must respect the US decision not to be bound by a treaty it has not signed.  That is precisely the reason the drafters of the Rome Statute allowed for Article 98 in the first place.  I respect the work of Campaign for Good Governance, but they are just wrong on this issue.  Our objection to the ICC is simply that, despite the best of intentions, we believe it is seriously flawed and may become an impediment to justice or even an instrument of injustice.”

Significant Concerns

“First, the Rome Statute chartering the new court contradicts the basic principles of national sovereignty in asserting jurisdiction over the nationals of states not party to the agreement. This differs from the situation in Sierra Leone, where the government clearly requested the establishment of a Special Court and asked that all trials occur in-country. On the other hand, we strongly object to the ICC's claims of jurisdiction over offenses committed by nationals of non-party states, including government officials and members of the armed forces. The ICC also purports to usurp the authority of sovereign states insofar as it pretends to be the final arbiter of whether any state's investigations or trials were ‘genuine’."

“Second, the Rome statute does not provide appropriate oversight of the court and the ICC prosecutor. Neither the court nor the prosecutor is adequately accountable to the U.N. Security Council or any democratically elected body. Moreover, the Rome statute lacks fundamental checks and balances. The treaty created a prosecutor who may make any accusation but is answerable to no state or institution other than the Court itself. This lack of accountability leaves open the possibility, even likelihood, of baseless, politically motivated investigations and prosecutions.”

“Third, the Rome Statute's provisions that empower the ICC to investigate and prosecute the as-yet-to-be-defined "crime of aggression" threaten to undermine the unique role and responsibilities of the U.N. Security Council. In doing so, it brings the ICC into potential conflict with the U.N. Charter. We believe that the U.N. Security Council ought to remain the institution that decides these important questions.”

The U.S. View

“We believe the international community should promote national accountability and encourage states to pursue credible justice within their own institutions. But when domestic justice is not practical, then the international community must be prepared to step in. In those cases, we support the establishment of creative ad-hoc means such as the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the Special Court for Sierra Leone, and alternative justice mechanisms such as Truth and Reconciliation Commissions.”

“We respect the right of other nations to become parties to the treaty, but ask that other countries respect our right not to do so. The United States has many global security responsibilities. The ICC might constrain the will and the ability of the United States and other nations to use military forces to meet those obligations. That would be unfortunate for all of us.”

“To address our concerns, we are seeking bilateral agreements, provided for under the very same Rome Statute, with as many countries as possible. These agreements will allow the United States and its friends and allies, like Sierra Leone, to continue to work together for security and justice.  The United States will continue to be a forceful advocate for the principle that there must be accountability for war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.”