|
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. The overwhelming majority of these communications came from individuals and groups within the United States and the United Kingdom. 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.〔Richard Norton-Taylor (2005). “(International court hears anti-war claims )” in ''The Guardian'', May 6, 2005.〕 On February 9, 2006, the Prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, published a letter〔Moreno-Ocampo (2006).〕 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. Australia, Poland and the UK are all state parties to the Rome Statute which established the International Criminal Court (ICC) and therefore their nationals are liable to prosecution by the court for the violation of any relevant international criminal laws. Because the United States is not a state party, Americans cannot be prosecuted by the court (except for crimes that take place in the territory of a state that has accepted the court's jurisdiction, or situations that are referred to the court by the United Nations Security Council, where the US has a veto). ==Allegations concerning the legality of the conflict== The prosecutor explained that although the Statute of the International Criminal Court "includes the crime of aggression, it indicates that the Court may not exercise jurisdiction over the crime until a provision has been adopted which defines the crime and sets out the conditions under which the Court may exercise jurisdiction with respect to it (Article 5(2))." Hence, "the International Criminal Court has a mandate to examine the conduct during the conflict, but not whether the decision to engage in armed conflict was legal. As the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, I do not have the mandate to address the arguments on the legality of the use of force or the crime of aggression".〔Moreno-Ocampo (2006), p. 4.〕 The states parties to the ICC may adopt such a definition at a review conference in 2009, but the court will only be able to exercise jurisdiction over acts of aggression committed after this amendment enters into force.〔International Criminal Court (2003). . Retrieved on 14 October 2007.〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「International Criminal Court and the 2003 invasion of Iraq」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|