Security Council debates link between UN peacekeeping, International Criminal Court

The United Nations Security Council today held an open debate in an effort to resolve the impasse over linkages between UN peacekeeping operations and the International Criminal Court (ICC) - a contentious issue that recently threatened to derail the extension of the UN Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNMIBH).

On 30 June, the Council adopted a technical, rollover resolution to extend UNMIBH's mandate for three days after the US had vetoed a text that would have renewed the Mission until the end of the year. In explaining its vote at the time, the US said that it would not expose its personnel serving under dangerous situations to promote peace to the additional risk of politicized prosecutions before the ICC. Last week, the Council agreed to extend the deadline for an additional 12 days, until 15 July.

Addressing the Council today, US Ambassador John D. Negroponte said Washington fully expected its peacekeepers to act in a lawful manner, but added that "peacekeepers can and do find themselves in difficult, ambiguous situations." Peacekeepers from countries that were not party to the Rome Statute should not face unnecessary legal jeopardy, he stressed.

The latest US proposal to break the impasse, Ambassador Negroponte pointed out, was based on Article 16 of the Rome Statute, which provides that the Council may make a renewable request to the Court not to commence or proceed with investigations or prosecutions for a 12-month period.

"We believe it is consistent both with the terms of Article 16 and with the primary responsibility of the Security Council for maintaining international peace and security for the Council to adopt such a resolution with regard to operations it authorizes or establishes," he said.

Ambassador Paul Heinbecker of Canada, which requested the session, spoke at the outset of the daylong meeting and urged members not to endorse a “blanket immunity” for peacekeepers. The principles at stake went beyond the ICC and called into question fundamental tenets of international law. Pointing out that the Council was not empowered to rewrite treaties, he said the draft resolutions being circulated contained elements that exceeded the Council’s mandate, and their adoption would undermine the 15-member body’s credibility.

Canada disagreed with the concerns of the United States because of the numerous safeguards written into the Rome Statute "precisely in order to preclude politically-motivated prosecutions," Ambassador Heinbecker said, noting that the Council had other options besides the drafts being presented.

Washington could simply opt to withdraw its forces from current missions, for example. "Their doing so would be regrettable and would not be without consequence, even significant consequence to those missions but, as the US contributes 704 of 45,159 UN peacekeeping personnel, all told, adjustments could be made," he observed.

Speaking on behalf of the European Union (EU), Ambassador Ellen Margrethe Løj of Denmark agreed that the ICC Statute contained "sufficient safeguards" against politically motivated prosecutions. Concerning the proposal put forward by the US, she said, "Article 16 should only be invoked in conformity with the Statute."

While underscoring the importance of UNMIBH, she also voiced the EU's "profound concern" for the matter's potential consequences for peacekeeping in general, and strongly urged Council members to reach a compromise "that does not harm the integrity of the Rome Statute and which ensures the uninterrupted continuation of UN peacekeeping operations."