Public Law Studies Quarterly

Bilateral non-surrender agreements in the context of the Convention on ‎the Law of Treaties and the Statute of the International Criminal Court

Document Type : Article

Authors

Ali Mohagheghdoust 1
Mohammad Hossein Ramezani Ghavamabadi 2

1 MA. In International law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

2 Associate Prof., Department of environmental Law, Faculty of law, Shahid Beheshti University, ‎Tehran, Iran‎

https://doi.org/10.22059/jplsq.2024.367222.3423
Abstract
To ensure that the jurisdiction of the ICC will not be exercised effectively over American nationals, the United States has entered into agreements with both member and non-member states of the Court, known as “Bilateral Non-Surrender Agreements”. Under the prevailing type of these agreements, each contracting state agrees will not surrender nationals of the other party to the ICC upon a request for surrender of the accused, unless expressly consented to by the other contracting state. The USA justifies and prescribes the conclusion of these agreements specifically under Article 98(2) of the Rome Statute. However, many legal writings argue that, fundamentally, these agreements are invalid according to the rules of the VCLT 1969 and they are incompatible with the provisions of the Rome Statute, particularly Article 98(2). The present research, which aims to evaluate the validity statements mentioned, has made an effort to not only assess the validity of the aforementioned agreements but also examine their compliance with the provisions of the Rome Statute. By providing a comprehensive legal analysis, this article has argued and substantiated that despite the fact that non-surrender agreements are valid under international law, they are not fully aligned with the statute of the Court.

Keywords

United States of America
‎Bilateral Non-Surrender ‎Agreements
Convention ‎on the Law of Treaties
‎Statute of the International ‎Criminal Court
Article ‎‎98(2).‎
Subjects

  1. English

    1. A) Books
      1. Drumbl, M. A .(2007). Atrocity Punishment and International Law. New York Washington and Lee Legal Studies, Cambridge University Press.
      2. Hornby, A. S. (2020). Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. London: tenth edition, Oxford University press.
      3. McGoldrick, D., Rowe, P., & Donnelly, E. (2004). The Permanent International Criminal Court: Legal and Policy Issues. Portland, first edn., Hart Publishing.
      4. Stahn, C. (2019). Critical Introduction to International Criminal Law. New York, First edn., Cambridge University Press.

     

    1. B) Articles
    2. Akende, D. (2004). International Law Immunities and the International Criminal Court., American Journal of International Law, 98(3), 407-433.
    3. Amnesty International (2002). International Criminal Court: US efforts to obtain impunity for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Ai index: Ior 40/025/2002, 1- 30.
    4. Bassiouni, M. C. (1996). International Crimes: Jus Cogens and Obligatio Erga Omnes. Law and Contemporary Problems, 59(4), 443- 469.
    5. Benzing, M. (2004). “U.S. Bilateral Non-Surrender Agreements and Article 98 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court: An exercise in the Law of Treaties. Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, (8), 181- 236.
    6. Crawford, J., Sands, P., & Wilde, R. (2003). In the Matter of the Statute of the International Criminal Court and in the Matter of Bilateral Agreements Sought by the United States Under Article 98(2) of the Statute (Joint Opinion). Available via:<https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/7f2edf/pdf/>.
    7. Tallman, “Catch 98(2): Article 98 Agreements and the Dilemma of Treaty Conflict. Georgetown Law Journal, 92, (5), June 2004.
    8. Dominguez, R., Weissman, L. J. (2020). The United States and the European Union. Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics, Retrieved 26 Oct.2023;<https://oxfordre.com/politics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-1125>.
    9. Ettari, S. V. (2004). A Foundation of Granite or Sand? The International Criminal Court and United States Bilateral Immunity Agreements. Brooklyn Journal of International Law, (30), 205-255.
    10. Keitner, C. (2001). Comment, Crafting the International Criminal Court Trials and Tribulations in Article 98(2). Journal of International Law & Foreign Affairs, 6 UCLA, 215- 264.
    11. Kelley, J. (2007). Who Keeps International Commitments and Why? The International Criminal Court and Bilateral Nonsurender Agreements. American Political Science Review, 101(3), 574- 589.
    12. King, H. (2006). mmunities and bilateral immunity agreements: issues arising from articles 27 and 98 of the Rome statute. 4 NZJPIL, 269- 310.
    13. Kirs, E. (2004). Reflection of the European Union to the US Bilateral Immunity Agreements. Miskolc Journal of International Law, 1(1), 19- 24.
    14. Legislative Attorney, U.S. Policy Regarding the International Criminal Court (ICC). Congressional Research Service, 2006, 1-26. Available via: < www.crs.gov> .
    15. Liakopoulos, D. (2019). International cooperation, legal assistance and the case of lacking states collaboration within the international criminal court. DERECHO, 374- 417. Available via: <http://dx.doi.org/10.21615/>.
    16. Marenco, V. T. (2008). United States’ special agreements: consistency with the object and purpose of the Rome statute. revista de derecho, universidad del norte, (29), 211- 236.
    17. Medan, S. A., & Dhamin, J. H. (2019). Bilateral Immunity Agreement; Analytical study of the text of article (98) of the Rome. Int.(Lahore), 31(4), 151-155.
    18. Meyer, Eric M. (2005). International Law: The Compatibility of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court with the U.S. Bilateral Immunity Agreements Included in the American Servicemembers Protection Act. Oklahoma Law Review, (58), 97- 133.
    19. Morris, M. (2001). High crimes and misconceptions: the ICC and non-party states. Law and contemporary problems, 64(1), 13- 66.
    20. A.Combs (2003). Establishing the International Criminal Court. Interna-tional Law FORUM du droit international 5, 77 et seq. (79); Cited in(Benzing, 2004: 184).
    21. Naqvi, Y. (2003). Amnesty for War Crimes: Defining the limits of international recognition. International Review of the Red Cross, (85), 583-626.
    22. O’Keefe, R.r (2019). Article 98 agreements, the law of treaties & the law of state responsibility. in Szabo (ed.), State Responsibility and the Law of treaties, The Hague: Eleven Publishing 2010, 1-13.
    23. Pick-Jones, A. (2018). towards permanently delegitimizing article 98 agreements: exercising the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over American citizens. New York university law review, (93), 1779- 1819.
    24. Roscini, M. (2006). The efforts to limit the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction over nationals of non-party states: a comparative study. The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, (5), 495–527.
    25. Scheffer, D. (2005). Article 98(2) of the Rome Statute: America’s Original Intent”, Journal of International Criminal Justice, (3), 47- 100.
    26. Ssenyonjo, M. (2018). State withdrawal notifications from the Rome statute of the international criminal court: South Africa, Burundi and the Gambia. Criminal Law Forum, 1-57.
    27. JR., Chet J. (2003). The Proliferation of Bilateral Non-Surrender Agreements among Non-Ratifiers of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. American University International Law Review, 19(5), 1115-1180.
    28. Van der Wilt, H. (2005). Bilateral Agreements Between the United States and States Parties to the Rome Statute: Are They Compatible with the Object and Purpose of the Statute?. Leiden Journal of International Law, (18), 93-111.
    29. Zamfir, I. (2018). International Criminal Court Achievements and challenges 20 years after the adoption of the Rome Statute. European Parliamentary Research Service, 1-12. available via: <europarl.europa.eu/thinktank>.

     

    1. C) Cases
    2. ICTY, Judgement, Prosecutor v. Furundžija, Case No. IT-95-17/i-T, T. Ch. II, 10 December 1998, Klip/ Sluiter, ALC-III-685.

    D)Theses

    1. Junior, T. D. (2008). Shall I surrender thee to the International Criminal Court?; The United States and bilateral ‘non-surrender’ agreements. Thesis master Dutch Criminal Law.

     

    1. E) Documents
    2. Agreement Between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty Regarding the Status of Their Forces, adopted on 19 June 1951, entry into force 23 August 1953, United Nations Treaty Series, Volume 199.
    3. Declaration on the Prohibition of Military, Political or Economic Coercion in the Conclusion of Treaties, United Nations Conference on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/26.
    4. EU Council Common Position 2003/444/CFSP of 16 June 2003 on the International Criminal Court, OJL 150/67, 18.6.2003.
    5. EU Guiding Principles Concerning Arrangements between a State Party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the United States Regarding the Conditions to Surrender of Persons to the Court, in General Affairs and External Relations Council, 2450th Council session, 30 September 2002, E.U. Doc. 12134/02 (Presse 279).
    6. Humphrey Waldock, Special Rapporteur, Second Report on the Law of Treaties, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/156 and Add.1-3.
    7. Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe resolution 1336 (2003), ‘Threats to the International Criminal Court’, 25 June 2003.
    8. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Done at Rome on 17 July 1998, in force on 1 July 2002, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 2187, No. 38544, Depositary: Secretary-General of the United Nations,< http://treaties.un.org>; visited 22 October 2023.
    9. Statement by the Presidency on behalf of the European Union on reaffirming the EU position supporting the integrity of the Rome Statute, 27 July 2004, 11680/04 (Presse 235) P 85/04.
    10. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969, United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 1155, No.18232.

     

    1. F) Websites
    2. CambridgeOnlineDictionary;<https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/send?q=to+send>; visited 8 October 2023.
    3. Coalition for the International Criminal Court, “Memo on Art. 98 of the Rome Statute and the Bilateral Agreements Proposed by US Government”, 23 August 2002, par.4. Available via:<http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/icc/ciccart98.html>; visited 10 October 2023.
    4. Coalition for the International Criminal Court, “US Bilateral Immunity or So-called “Article 98” Agreements”, Global Policy Forum, New York, 18 April 2003: <http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/icc/2003/0606usbilaterals.htm >; visited 11 October 2023.
    5. Coalition for the International Criminal Court, Countries Opposed to Signing a US Bilateral Immunity Agreement (BIA): US Aid Lost in FY04 & FY05 and threatened in FY06, 11 December 2006. Available via:<http://www.iccnow.org/documents/CountriesOpposedBIA_final_11Dec06_final pdf.>; visited 9 October 2023.
    6. Conference Report Berlin 2004, International Law Association, Committee on the International Criminal Court, p.14. Available via:< http://www.ila-hq.org/index.php/committees >; visited 16 October 2023.
    7. Countries that have Signed Article 98 Agreements with the U.S., International Criminal Court Article 98 Agreements research Guide, Georgetown law, last updated 23 oct. 2018: <https://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=363527&p=2456099> visited 9 October 2023.
    8. Human Rights Watch, “Bilateral Immunity Agreements”, June 20, 2003: Available via: <http://www.hrw.org>; visited 16 October 2023.
    9. Human Rights Watch, “Letter to European Union Foreign Ministers on Article 98 Agreements”, 2002: <https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/23/letter-european-union-foreign-ministers-article-98-agreements>; visited 13 October 2023.
    10. Human Rights Watch, The ICC and the Security Council: Resolution 1422, Legal and Policy Analysis:<https://www.hrw.org/legacy/campaigns/icc/docs/1422legal.htm>; visited 10 October 2023.
    11. Human Rights Watch, United States Efforts to Undermine the International Criminal Court: Article 98(2) Agreements, 9 July 2002. Available via:<http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/icc/icc_article98.pdf>; visited 13 October 2023.
    12. John R. Bolton, American Justice and the International Criminal Court, Remarks at the American Enterprise Institute, U.S. Department of state, 3 November 2003, Available via:<http://2001-2009. state.gov/t/us/rm/25818.htm>; visited visited 11 October 2023.
    13. Press Conference from Bogota Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, The center for International Policy’s Latin America Security Program, Colombia Dec. 4, 2002, Available via: <https://adamisacson.com/files/old_cip_colombia/02120401.htm> visited visited 18 October 2023.
    14. Richard Boucher, U.S. Signs 100th Article 98 Agreement, Spokesman Press Statement, U.S. Department of state, 3 May 2005. Available via: <https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2005/45573.htm>; visited 15 October 2023.
    15. The Centre for International Law Research and Policy (CILRAP), Case Matrix Network (CMN), Comentary Rome Statute: part 9, Art. 98(2), Available via:< https://www.casematrixnetwork.org/index.php?id=343#40361>; visited 14 October 2023.
    16. United Nations Treaty Collection, CHAPTER XXIII, LAW OF TREATIES, Status chart of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (23 May 1969). Available via:<https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetailsIII.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXIII1&chapter=23&Temp=mtdsg3&clang=_en>; visited 18 October 2023.

     

    Refereces in Persian:

    1. A) Books
    1. Beigzadeh, E. (2019). Lessons on Public International Law 2. Tehran: Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University. (in Persian)
    2. Falsafi, H. (2016). Law of International Treaties. 5th edition, Tehran: Nashr-e-Now Publications. (in Persian)
    3. Kittichaisaree, K. (2004). International Criminal Law. translated by Behnam Yousefian and Mohammad Esmaeili, 1st edition, Tehran: Samt Publications. (in Persian)
    4. Mirabbasi, S. B. (2010). Public International Law. Vol. I, Tehran: 1st edition, Mizan Publications. (in Persian)
    5. Musazadeh, R. (2010). International Organizations Law: Law of the Security Council. 1st edition, Tehran: Mizan Publications. (in Persian)
    6. Wallace, R., & Ortega, O. M. (2017). International Law, translated by Seyyed Ghasem Zamani and Mahnaz Bahramloo, 6th edition, Tehran: Shahr-e-Danesh Publications. (in Persian)
    7. Ziyayi Bigdeli, M. R. (2011). Public International Law. 40th edition, Tehran: Ganj-e-Danesh Publications. (in Persian)
    8. Ziyayi Bigdeli, M. R. (2013). International Treaty Law. 5th edition, Tehran: Ganj-e-Danesh Publications. (in Persian)
    9. Ziyayi Bigdeli, M. R. (2018). Law of War; International Law of Armed Conflicts. 5th edition, Tehran: Allameh Tabataba'i University Publications. (in Persian)

     

    1. B) Articles
    2. Beigzadeh, E. (2003). Challenges of International Criminal Court. Foreign Policy Quarterly, 17(2), 357-372. (in Persian)
    3. Delkhosh, A. (2011). States' Commitment to Cooperation with the International Criminal Court (General Regulations). Legal Research Quarterly, 13(32), 113-172. (in Persian)
    4. Goldouzian, I., & Marjani, M. (2019). Capacities and Mechanisms for the Extradition of Criminals in the United Nations Convention against Corruption. Justice Monthly Magazine, 25(138), 18-26. (in Persian)
    5. Khandagh, N. (2009). America and the International Criminal Court. Defense Policy Journal, (68), 65-89. (in Persian)
    6. Momtaz, J., & Akbari, M. (2016). America and the International Criminal Court: Swinger Policy, from Confrontation to Interaction. Strategic Quarterly Journal, 25(78), 29-61. (in Persian)
    7. Ramezani Ghavamabadi, M. H. (2018). The Presence of Defendants and it’s Exceptions in the International Criminal Court. Criminal Law Research Journal, 9, (2), 155-182. (in Persian)
    8. Zamani, G. (2002). Establishment of the International Criminal Court: Fears and Hopes. Legal Research Journal, (2), 59-78. (in Persian)
    9. Zamani, G., & Ya'qubi, E (2019). The European Union and the International Criminal Court: Symbolic Cooperation and Support. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Research, (13), 5-31. (in Persian)

     

    1. C) Theses
    2. Mohagheghdoust, A. (2021). Bilateral Agreements and Limitation of the International Criminal Court’s Jurisdictiona. Master's Thesis, International Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University. (in Persian)
    3. Sobhani, M. (2008). Obstacles to Impunity Eradication. Master's Thesis, International Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University. (in Persian)
Public Law Studies Quarterly
Volume 55, Issue 2 - Serial Number 42
Summer 2025
Summer 2025
Pages 1151-1192

  • Receive Date 27 October 2023
  • Revise Date 26 February 2024
  • Accept Date 06 May 2024

Home

Journal Process Ethics

Peer Review Process

Submission

Indexing and Abstracting

Contact Us