Friday, Dec 27, 2002
Friday, Dec 27, 2002 |
| Front Page | ||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | Front Page
By Amit Baruah
The agreement, signed by the Foreign Secretary, Kanwal Sibal, and the U.S. Ambassador, Robert Blackwill, at Hyderabad House, defines "persons" as current or former Government employees, military personnel or nationals of either country. "As strong, vibrant democracies, both India and the U.S. share concerns about the possible conflict between robust, national judicial processes and international tribunals as also the impact of such tribunals on national sovereignty,'' the Foreign Office spokesman said today. The U.S. had shown a "lot of initiative and interest" in signing the agreement. (With today's agreement, the U.S. has signed 16 similar agreements on the non-surrender of persons with other countries). While there was no reference to the International Criminal Court, the spokesman said that the context in which the accord was signed was the ICC. In a statement, Mr. Blackwill said India and the U.S. shared the strongest possible commitment to bringing to justice those who commit war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. "However, we are concerned about the International Criminal Court treaty with respect to the adequacy of checks and balances, the impact of the treaty on national sovereignty and the potential for conflict with the U.N. charter,'' he said. "This accord... is emblematic of the strides that continue to be made in transforming U.S.-India relations. Both Governments look forward to working in close cooperation on such significant issues,'' Mr. Blackwill said. The Foreign Office spokesman said India had participated in the negotiations on the ICC treaty with a view to becoming a signatory. The statute that finally emerged fell short of expectations on a number of issues. For instance, international terrorism was not included and the statute had little flexibility in the nature of jurisdiction. According to the spokesman, it blurred the distinction between customary law and treaty obligations in relation to definition of internal conflicts and crimes against humanity. The statute also failed to respect the sacrosanct principle of consent of States and the principle of territoriality in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction. The ICC, he said, had been seen as a court which would handle cases in exceptional circumstances — such as failed States or where national judicial processes had collapsed. Asked if India was concerned that the security personnel in Jammu and Kashmir could be taken to the ICC, the spokesman said that New Delhi's concerns related to its Army personnel involved in international peacekeeping operations. These personnel, he added, worked in difficult conditions in uncertain situations where law and order had, by definition, failed. The accord will enter into force upon an exchange of notes confirming that each party has completed the necessary domestic legal requirements to bring the agreement into force. "It will remain in force until one year after the date on which one party notifies the other of its intent to terminate this agreement. The provisions of this agreement shall continue to apply with respect to any act occurring, or any allegation arising, before the effective date of termination," the text of the agreement said.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | Home |
Copyright © 2002, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|
