Search the Internet          Tips

Indian peacekeepers cannot be tried by ICC, envoy tells UN

India, one the largest contributors to the UN peacekeeping operations, has strongly opposed its peacekeepers being subjected the jurisdiction of institutions like the International Criminal Court (ICC), that it does not recognize.

"We find it difficult to accept an outside authority purporting to sit on judgment upon the action of our troops... We see them as answerable for their behaviour to authorities within established hierarchy of command and to our own established institutions," new Indian Ambassador to UN V K Nambiar said in New York on Wednesday.

He, however, said that New Delhi 'understands the dilemma' of the countries that have signed the statute of International criminal Court and taken upon themselves certain specific obligations.

"We recognize that they are free to submit their nationals, including their troops, to the jurisdiction of ICC," Nambiar told the UN Security Council.

India and the US are among the countries that have not signed the Rome treaty establishing the ICC, and this row over jurisdiction comes at a time when the UN is discussing the extension of peacekeeping forces in Bosnia.

Urging the world body to give 'careful consideration' to the view of major troop contributing countries that were not party to ICC, Nambiar said: "The Council should not allow UN peacekeeping operations, an important tool for maintenance for peace and security in its hands, to be undermined by its own decisions."

He also felt the Council should ensure that troops for UN peacekeeping are drawn from countries that uphold healthy democratic traditions and where respect for the rule of law, constitutional order, civilian control over armed forces and basic transparency in functioning of institutions are observed.

"Troops that usurp power at home and undermine or emasculate constitutional structures are unlikely to promote or reinforce the rule of law elsewhere," he added.

"UN peacekeeping operations are deployed to serve the cause of peace often in lands unknown to the peacekeepers who operate under strict mandates and tight rules of engagement established by the world body."

"They are accountable to their own governments for their actions in the field and, therefore, it is highly unlikely that UN peacekeepers would commit criminal offences of an egregious nature or gross, premeditated and systemic crimes," he said.

Besides, "the peacekeepers are provided immunity under the Status of Forces Agreement. Under it, a peacekeeper is deported to his own country to be tried by its national courts if any allegations are made."

Exposing them to allegations and possible harassment through charges of crimes committed during their exercise of functions as peacekeepers, would not only render them open to possibility of motivated charges, but were likely to put them on the defensive and constrict their capacity to take firm action, he told the Council.

In a related development, the US, faced with stiff opposition to its demand for permanent immunity for its peacekeepers, proposed a compromise formula envisaging a 12-month exemption for its troops involved in such operations.

It suggested that no peacekeeper from a country, which has not ratified the treaty establishing the court (ICC), would be subject to investigation by it for 12 months.

The peacekeeper could then be investigated unless the Security Council (UNSC) decides otherwise, said diplomats, describing the proposal 'not far enough', but a 'climb down' nonetheless.

Those attending the consultations on Wednesday when the proposal was presented said, "It was a positive step and provides basis for further negotiations. The US has at least signalled that it would not insist on blanket immunity for its peacekeepers."

Tell us what you think of this report