U.S Backs Chad Exit From ICC

 One country walked away from the International Criminal Court, and the United States immediately turned it into a recruitment campaign. After Chad announced plans to leave the ICC, Washington praised the decision as a victory for sovereignty and urged every other member state to consider following the same path, setting the stage for another major confrontation over the future of international justice.

Washington described Chad's decision to withdraw from the ICC as a step towards reclaiming national sovereignty, arguing that the court has gradually stretched beyond its original mandate and now exercises authority where it should not.

In a statement released by the United States Bureau of African Affairs, the Trump administration welcomed Chad's move and repeated its long standing criticism of the Hague based court.

The statement declared that the United States welcomed Chad's decision to withdraw from the ICC and join what it described as a growing number of nations reclaiming their sovereignty from a flawed institution.

It also repeated Secretary of State Marco Rubio's position that the United States would never surrender its sovereignty to what Washington called an unaccountable global tribunal. The administration announced that it was launching what it described as a comprehensive government wide campaign aimed at ending what it considers the ICC's illegitimate overreach while urging every remaining member state to withdraw from the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the court.

The latest declaration reinforces President Donald Trump's long standing opposition to the ICC and comes only weeks after Washington formally informed the court that it does not recognise its authority over American citizens or intend to cooperate with its investigations.

Interestingly, Chad had only earlier announced that it had officially begun the process of leaving the International Criminal Court, becoming the latest country to distance itself from the institution that prosecutes genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes from its headquarters in The Hague, Netherlands.

Washington's disagreement with the ICC is hardly new. Earlier this month, the United States Department of Justice formally notified the court that America rejects any claim that the tribunal has jurisdiction over American citizens and made it clear that it would not cooperate with ongoing or future investigations involving the United States.

At the same time, the dispute has now spilled into the courts after three ICC judges, Kimberly Prost of Canada, Solomy Balungi Bossa of Uganda and Reine Adelaide Sophie Alapini Gansou of Benin, filed a lawsuit in a federal court in Manhattan challenging sanctions imposed on them by the Trump administration.

The judges argued that the sanctions were unlawful and designed to intimidate members of the court while interfering with judicial independence. According to the lawsuit, the measures were intended to punish and pressure judges simply for carrying out their official responsibilities.

Those sanctions were introduced after the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and after the court previously opened an investigation into alleged war crimes involving United States troops in Afghanistan.

Under the sanctions, the judges had any United States based property or assets frozen while American citizens and organisations were prohibited from conducting transactions with them or providing funds, goods or services.

Since its establishment in 2002, the International Criminal Court has maintained jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes committed in member states or in situations referred by the United Nations Security Council. Successive American administrations, however, have consistently argued that the court cannot exercise authority over United States citizens without Washington's consent.

With Chad now heading for the exit and Washington openly encouraging others to follow, the argument has clearly shifted from whether the court has authority to whether enough countries still believe it should. It seems the ICC is discovering that winning legal arguments is one thing, but keeping everyone at the table is a completely different trial.