Term
|
Definition
The Treaty of Chaguaramas established the Caribbean Community and Common Market, later known as CARICOM. It was signed on July 4, 1973 in Chaguaramas, Trinidad and Tobago.[1]
A revised Treaty of Chaguaramas establishing the Caribbean Community including the CARICOM Single Market and Economy (CSME) was signed in 2001.[2] |
|
|
Term
| Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court |
|
Definition
| The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (often referred to as the International Criminal Court Statute or the Rome Statute) is the treaty that established the International Criminal Court (ICC). It was adopted at a diplomatic conference in Rome on 17 July 1998[5][6] and it entered into force on 1 July 2002.[2] As of October 2009, 110 states are party to the statute,[2] and a further 38 states have signed but not ratified the treaty.[2] Among other things, the statute establishes the court's functions, jurisdiction and structure. |
|
|
Term
| Roman Statute: Ratification |
|
Definition
As of October 2009, 110 countries have ratified or acceded to the Rome Statute, including all of South America, most of Europe, and roughly half the countries in Africa.[2][11]
A further 38 states have signed but not ratified the treaty;[2] the law of treaties obliges these states to refrain from “acts which would defeat the object and purpose” of the treaty.[12] Three of these states — Israel, Sudan and the United States — have withdrawn their signatures, indicating that they no longer intend to become states parties and, as such, they have no legal obligations arising from their signature of the statute.[2][13][14] |
|
|
Term
| The American Service-Members' Protection Act (ASPA) |
|
Definition
The American Service-Members' Protection Act (ASPA) is a United States federal law introduced by US Senator Jesse Helms as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act and passed in August 2002 by Congress. The stated purpose of the amendment was "to protect United States military personnel and other elected and appointed officials of the United States government against criminal prosecution by an international criminal court to which the United States is not party".
It authorizes the President to use “all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any US or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court”. This has led to the nickname The Hague Invasion Act[1][2], since such freeing of US citizens by force might only be possible through an invasion of The Hague, Netherlands, the seat of several international criminal courts.
The Act prohibits federal, state and local governments and agencies (including courts and law enforcement agencies) from assisting the Court. For example, it prohibits the extradition of any person from the United States to the Court; it prohibits the transfer of classified national security information and law enforcement information to the Court; and it prohibits agents of the Court from conducting investigations in the United States.
The Act also prohibits U.S. military aid to countries that are party to the Court. However, exceptions are allowed for aid to NATO members, major non-NATO allies, Taiwan, and countries which have entered into “Article 98 agreements”, agreeing not to hand over U.S. nationals to the Court. Furthermore, the President may waive this prohibition where he determines that to do so is “important to the national interest of the United States”. |
|
|
Term
| 2001: Rome Statute, ICC & EU |
|
Definition
| In 2001 the EU agreed a common position, that is it has an EU-wide agreed foreign policy on the matter, strongly supporting the ICC. That position was updated in 2003 and combined with an action plan.[2][3] |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A 2006 co-operation agreement between the EU and ICC also obliges the EU and its members to assist the ICC, particularly by handing over classified information to the court.[4][1] Examples of this cooperation already include supporting the ICC in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Darfur, the latter including the EU Satellite Centre providing imagery and reports.[5] |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| All its member states have signed and ratified the Rome Statute (which established the court, having come into force in 2002) and hence, due to the lack of other major powers being members, the EU is now the largest financial contributor to the court[1] (before the accession of Japan in 2007, this was 75.6 %. Afterwards, still 57.4%).[5] The EU also funds organisations promoting the court.[1] |
|
|
Term
| ICC & America: Clinton, Bush and Obama |
|
Definition
Positions in the United States concerning the ICC vary widely. The Clinton Administration signed the Rome Statute in 2000, but did not submit it for Senate ratification. The Bush Administration, the US administration at the time of the ICC's founding, stated that it would not join the ICC. When asked whether the United States should join the International Criminal Court, Barack Obama (then a Senator), stated:
Yes[.] The United States should cooperate with ICC investigations in a way that reflects American sovereignty and promotes our national security interests[2]. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| As of April 2010[update], 111 states are members of the Court,[1] and a further 38 countries have signed but not ratified the Rome Statute that established the court.[1] Countries such as India, Indonesia, and China have not signed or ratified the Rome Statute.[1] The United States is in the unique position of having signed the Rome Statute, but formally withdrawn its current intention of ratification. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Obama Administration has stated its intent to cooperate with the International Criminal Court. On November 16, 2009, Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues, Stephen Rapp, announced that he would lead the U.S. delegation to the ICC's annual meeting of the Assembly of States Parties in The Hague. He told journalists "Our government has now made the decision that Americans will return to engagement at the ICC." The U.S. will participate as an observer. This will be the first time America has had a delegate attend the ICC's annual meeting of the Assembly.[14]
In response to a question from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton remarked that the US will end its “hostility” towards the Court. In addition, Susan Rice, US Ambassador to the United Nations, in her first address to the Security Council, expressed US support for the Court’s investigation in Sudan. These statements coupled with the removal of sanctions to the Bilateral Immunity agreements (BIAs) signals a positive shift in the US cooperation with the Court and may lead to greater participation with it. The Obama Administration has made no formal policy decision yet on the ICC or the status of the BIAs.[citation needed] |
|
|
Term
| Bilateral Immunity Agreements (BIAs) |
|
Definition
| so-called Article 98 Agreements shielding US nationals from the jurisdiction of the ICC. |
|
|
Term
| United States "Netherrcutt Amendment" and Consolidated Appropriations Act: when and what and why significant |
|
Definition
The Nethercutt Amendment differed from former anti-ICC provisions the American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA) by imposing economic aid cuts instead of military aid cuts. Cutting economic assistance is far a more damaging act because in many countries, it intended to bolster local economies instead of national defense. In addition, existing Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs) and other bilateral agreements already provide full US jurisdiction over US personnel and officials serving abroad.
The appropriations bill containing the controversial amendments were adopted for FY 2005, FY 2006, and FY 2008. Congress did not pass a foreign operations appropriations bill or any other bill containing the Nethercutt provision for FY 2007. On December 17, 2007 the US Congress approved HR 2764[34], a comprehensive Consolidated Appropriations Act which reinstates the so-called Nethercutt provision cutting off Economic Support Funds (ESF) to nations unwilling to enter into Bilateral Immunity Agreements (BIAs) or so-called Article 98 Agreements shielding US nationals from the jurisdiction of the ICC. |
|
|
Term
| United Nations Resolution 1422: when was it adopted & what did it say? |
|
Definition
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1422 was adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on July 12, 2002.[1] It granted immunity from prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC) to United Nations peacekeeping personnel from countries that were not party to the ICC.
The resolution was passed at the insistence of the United States, which threatened to veto the renewal of all United Nations peacekeeping missions unless its citizens were shielded from prosecution by the ICC.[2]
Resolution 1422 came into effect on 1 July 2002 for a period of one year. It was renewed for twelve months by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1487, which was passed on June 12, 2003. However, the Security Council refused to renew the exemption again in 2004 after pictures emerged of US troops abusing Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib, and the US withdrew its demand.[3] |
|
|
Term
| universal jurisdiction & "law of universal jurisdiction" |
|
Definition
| The concept received a great deal of prominence with Belgium's 1993 "law of universal jurisdiction", which was amended in 2003 in order to reduce its scope following a case before the International Court of Justice regarding an arrest warrant issued under the law, entitled Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium).[1] The creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002 reduced the perceived need to create universal jurisdiction laws, although the ICC is not entitled to judge crimes committed before 2002. |
|
|
Term
| World Summit: happened when, led to what document outlining what new policy? |
|
Definition
| The 2005 World Summit, 14–16 September 2005, was a follow-up summit meeting to the United Nations' 2000 Millennium Summit, which led to the Millennium Declaration of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Representatives (including many leaders) of the 191 (now 192) member states met in New York City for what the United Nations described as "a once-in-a-generation opportunity to take bold decisions in the areas of development, security, human rights and reform of the United Nations. |
|
|
Term
| Article 98: what do they create, what do they do |
|
Definition
| Bilateral Immunity Agreements To date, approximately 102 BIA's have been signed:it is unclear how many of these are legally binding. Article 98 agreements were intended to prevent prosecution of any American citizen by the ICC. |
|
|
Term
| 2002 US reaction to ICC: how many countries got cut out of ESF, how many european? |
|
Definition
| In 2002, the United States passed a law cutting off military aid for 35 countries (among them nine European countries) |
|
|
Term
| U.S. Economic Support Fund (ESF) |
|
Definition
| ESF funding entails a wide range of governance programs including international counter-terrorism efforts, peace process programs, anti-drug trafficking initiatives, truth and reconciliation commissions, wheelchair distribution and HIV/AIDS education, among others; 2002 Nethercutt Amendment cut off ESF to countries that did not sign Article 98 (with the qualification that NATO allies would still receive funding) |
|
|
Term
| Article 98: first country signed when, last country to sign was when |
|
Definition
First: Romania, which set off a panic in the EU--they met to discuss whetehr memeber states should be allowed to join (outcome: yes)
Last state: angola in 2006 |
|
|
Term
| Council of the EU reaction to Article 98 |
|
Definition
| Council of the European Union adopted a common position, permitting member states to enter into Article 98 agreements with the United States, but only concerning U.S. military personnel, U.S. diplomatic or consular officials, and persons extradited, sent to their territories by the United States with their permission; not the general protection of U.S. nationals that the United States sought; furthermore the common position provided that any person protected from ICC prosecution by such agreements would have to be prosecuted by the United States. This was in agreement with the original position of the EU, that Article 98 agreements were allowed to cover these restricted classes of persons but could not cover all the citizens of a sta |
|
|
Term
| ICC & 2003 Iraq War: when were complaints? what two complaints? |
|
Definition
The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court reported in February 2006 that he had received 240 communications in connection with the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 which alleged that various war crimes had been committed. Many of these complaints concerned the British participation in the invasion, as well as the alleged responsibility for torture deaths while in detention in British-controlled areas.[1]
On February 9, 2006, the Prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, published a letter[2] that he had sent to all those who had communicated with him concerning the above, which set out his conclusions on these matters, following a preliminary investigation of the complaints. He explained that two sets of complaints were involved:
(1) Complaints concerning the legality of the invasion itself; and
(2) Complaints concerning the conduct of hostilities between March and May 2003, which included allegations in respect of (a) the targeting of civilians or clearly excessive attacks; and (b) willful killing or inhumane treatment of civilians. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Yoo suggested that since the primary task of the President during a time of war is protecting US citizens,[citation needed] the President has inherent authority to subordinate independent government agencies, and plenary power to use force abroad.[49] Yoo contends that the Congressional check on Presidential war making power comes from its power of the purse, and that the President, and not the Congress or courts, has sole authority to interpret international treaties such as the Geneva Conventions "because treaty interpretation is a key feature of the conduct of foreign affairs".[50] His positions on executive power are controversial because the theory can be interpreted as holding that the President's war powers place him above any law |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The African Union (abbreviated AU in English, and UA in its other official languages) is an intergovernmental organization consisting of 53 African states. Established on 9 July 2002,[4] the AU was formed as a successor to the Organisation of African Unity (OAU). The most important decisions of the AU are made by the Assembly of the African Union, a semi-annual meeting of the heads of state and government of its member states. The AU's secretariat, the African Union Commission, is based in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. |
|
|
Term
| Kyoto Protocol: when signed? how many states have signed it? |
|
Definition
| The Protocol was initially adopted on 11 December 1997 in Kyoto, Japan and entered into force on 16 February 2005. As of November 2009, 187 states have signed and ratified the protocol |
|
|
Term
| Kyoto: Chinese 11th Five Year Plan |
|
Definition
| The Chinese 11th Five Year Plan has a number of stringent national objectives to reduce emissions, one of which is a 20% reduction in energy intensity of GDP, from 2005 to 2010 (Stern, 2007, p. 456).[36] According to World Bank (2010, p. 192), this target, if met, will reduce annual CO2 emissions by 1.5 billion tons in 2010. This is the most aggressive emission reduction target in the world, and is five times larger than the EU's Kyoto emission reduction commitment, and eight times larger than California's target.[13] |
|
|
Term
| Norway: their bullshit Kyoto plan |
|
Definition
| Between 1990 and 2007, Norway's greenhouse gas emissions increased by 12%.[35] As well as directly reducing their own greenhouse gas emissions, Norway's idea for carbon neutrality is to finance reforestation in China, a legal provision of the Kyoto protocol. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
France, United States, United Kingdom, Russia, Germany, Japan, Italy, and Canada (EU is also represented)
Together the eight countries making up the G8 represent about 14% of the world population, but they represent about 60% of the Gross World Product[34] as measured by gross domestic product, all 8 nations being within the top 12 countries according to the CIA World Factbook. (see the CIA World Factbook column in List of countries by GDP (nominal)), the majority of global military power (seven are in the top 8 nations for military expenditure[35]), and almost all of the world's active nuclear weapons.[36] In 2007, the combined G8 military spending was US$850 billion. This is 72% of the world's total military expenditures. (see List of countries and federations by military expenditures) Four of the G8 members, the United Kingdom, United States of America, France and Russia, together account for 96–99% of the world's nuclear weapons. |
|
|
