<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE root>
<article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/" article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.2" xml:lang="en"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">RUDN Journal of Law</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title xml:lang="en">RUDN Journal of Law</journal-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="ru"><trans-title>Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Серия: Юридические науки</trans-title></trans-title-group></journal-title-group><issn publication-format="print">2313-2337</issn><issn publication-format="electronic">2408-9001</issn><publisher><publisher-name xml:lang="en">Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia named after Patrice Lumumba (RUDN University)</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">26050</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.22363/2313-2337-2021-25-1-309-332</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="toc-heading" xml:lang="en"><subject>INTERNATIONAL LAW</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="toc-heading" xml:lang="ru"><subject>МЕЖДУНАРОДНОЕ ПРАВО</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="article-type"><subject>Research Article</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title xml:lang="en">The measures against the International Criminal Court (USA v. ICC): the perspective of International Law</article-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="ru"><trans-title>Меры против Международного уголовного суда (США против МУС): перспектива международного права</trans-title></trans-title-group></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><name-alternatives><name xml:lang="en"><surname>Fahmy</surname><given-names>Walid</given-names></name><name xml:lang="ru"><surname>Фахми</surname><given-names>Валид</given-names></name></name-alternatives><bio xml:lang="en"><p>Associate Professor of Public International Law, Faculty of Legal Studies</p></bio><bio xml:lang="ru"><p>доцент кафедры публичного международного права факультета правовых исследований</p></bio><email>walid.fahmy@pua.edu.eg</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/></contrib></contrib-group><aff-alternatives id="aff1"><aff><institution xml:lang="en">Pharos University in Alexandria</institution></aff><aff><institution xml:lang="ru">Фаросский университет в Александрии</institution></aff></aff-alternatives><pub-date date-type="pub" iso-8601-date="2021-03-24" publication-format="electronic"><day>24</day><month>03</month><year>2021</year></pub-date><volume>25</volume><issue>1</issue><issue-title xml:lang="en">BIOMEDICINE AND LAW</issue-title><issue-title xml:lang="ru">БИОМЕДИЦИНА И ПРАВО</issue-title><fpage>309</fpage><lpage>332</lpage><history><date date-type="received" iso-8601-date="2021-03-24"><day>24</day><month>03</month><year>2021</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement xml:lang="en">Copyright ©; 2021, Fahmy W.</copyright-statement><copyright-statement xml:lang="ru">Copyright ©; 2021, Фахми В.</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2021</copyright-year><copyright-holder xml:lang="en">Fahmy W.</copyright-holder><copyright-holder xml:lang="ru">Фахми В.</copyright-holder><ali:free_to_read xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/"/><license><ali:license_ref xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0</ali:license_ref></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://journals.rudn.ru/law/article/view/26050">https://journals.rudn.ru/law/article/view/26050</self-uri><abstract xml:lang="en"><p style="text-align: justify;">Since its creation, the International Criminal Court has faced the refusal of the United States to cooperate, which, in addition to staying outside the Rome Statute, has undertaken a real strategy of weakening the Criminal Code. The argument put forward by the US Government against the Rome Statute is that an international treaty cannot create obligations for a non-party state and therefore the United States denies any jurisdiction of that jurisdiction over its nationals. As early as 2000, that country had unsuccessfully introduced a proposal before the Preparatory Commission to prevent bringing American military personnel to the Court. The American Service Members’ Protection Act (ASPA), bilateral immunity agreements and Security Council resolutions constitute the arsenal used by States at that time to neutralize the ICC. Recently, the United States signed an order authorizing the United States to prevent and penalize employees of the International Criminal Court from entering the country. The US administration, which has been critical of the ICC for months, is opposed to launching investigation into war crimes in Afghanistan. Is not that a sign of difficulty with the US Legal Justifications? In other words, does this weakness open up the possibility of prosecution in the event of a violation of international law by US?</p></abstract><trans-abstract xml:lang="ru"><p style="text-align: justify;">С момента своего создания Международный уголовный суд столкнулся с отказом Соединенных Штатов сотрудничать. США, которые, помимо того, что остаются вне Римского статута, взяли на себя целевую стратегию ослабления своего Уголовного кодекса. Довод, выдвинутый правительством США против Римского статута, заключается в том, что международный договор не может создавать обязательства для государства, не являющегося участником, и поэтому Соединенные Штаты отрицают любую юрисдикцию в отношении своих граждан. Еще в 2000 году эта страна безуспешно внесла на рассмотрение Подготовительной комиссии предложение о недопущении передачи в Международный уголовный Суд (МУС) американского военного персонала. Закон о защите американских военнослужащих, двусторонние соглашения об иммунитете и резолюции Совета Безопасности представляют собой арсенал, используемый Соединенными Штатами в то время для нейтрализации МУС. Недавно Соединенные Штаты подписали приказ, разрешающий им препятствовать въезду в страну сотрудников Международного уголовного суда и наказывать их. Администрация США, которая в течение нескольких месяцев выступает с критикой Суда, возражает против начала расследования военных преступлений в Афганистане. Является ли это признаком сложностей, связанных с юридическим подходом к данному вопросу в США? Другими словами, открывает ли эта проблема возможность судебного преследования в случае нарушения международного права со стороны США?</p></trans-abstract><kwd-group xml:lang="en"><kwd>International Criminal Court</kwd><kwd>Nuremberg Trials</kwd><kwd>Rome Statute</kwd><kwd>Bilateral Agreements</kwd><kwd>Erga Omnes</kwd><kwd>Jus Cogens</kwd><kwd>Rule of Law</kwd><kwd>American Service Members’ protection act</kwd><kwd>Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the Court</kwd><kwd>erga omnes</kwd><kwd>jus cogens</kwd></kwd-group><kwd-group xml:lang="ru"><kwd>Международный уголовный суд</kwd><kwd>Нюрнбергский процесс</kwd><kwd>Римский статут</kwd><kwd>двусторонние соглашения</kwd><kwd>верховенство права</kwd><kwd>закон о защите американских военнослужащих</kwd><kwd>соглашение о привилегиях и иммунитетах Суда</kwd></kwd-group><funding-group/></article-meta></front><body></body><back><ref-list><ref id="B1"><label>1.</label><mixed-citation>Bassouini, M. (1996) International Crimes: Jus Cogens and Obligatio Erga Omnes. Law and Contemporary Problems. 59(4), 63-74</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B2"><label>2.</label><mixed-citation>Bava, J. &amp; Ireland, K. (2016-2017) The American Service Members’ Protection Act: Pathways to, and Constraints on, U.S. Cooperation with the International Criminal Court'. Eye on the ICC. (12), 1-29. Available from: https://www-cdn.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/ 2016/07/Bava_Ireland_Article_FINAL.pdf [Accessed 12th November 2020]</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B3"><label>3.</label><mixed-citation>Benzing, M. (2004) U.S. Bilateral Non-Surrender Agreements and Article 98 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court: An Exercise in the Law of Treaties. Max Planck UNYB. 8(1),181-236. Doi: 10.1163/138946304775159756</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B4"><label>4.</label><mixed-citation>Boller, T. (2003) The International Criminal Court: Better then Nuremberg? Indiana International &amp; Comparative Law Review. 14(1), 279-314</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B5"><label>5.</label><mixed-citation>Chesterman, S. (2008) An International Rule of Law? The American Journal of Comparative Law. 56(2), 331-361</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B6"><label>6.</label><mixed-citation>Chet, J. (2004) The Proliferation of Bilateral Non-Surrender Agreements Among Non-Ratifiers of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. American University International Law Review. 19(5), 1115-1180</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B7"><label>7.</label><mixed-citation>Cimiotta, E. (2016) The Relevance of Erga Omnes Obligations in Prosecuting International Crimes. Heidelberg Journal of International Law. 76(3), 687-713</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B8"><label>8.</label><mixed-citation>Curtis, B. &amp; Goldsmith, J. (2017) Foreign Relations Law: Cases and Materials. Walters Kluwer</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B9"><label>9.</label><mixed-citation>Damien Massi Lombat, P. (2014) Les sources et fondements de l’obligation de coopérer avec la Cour pénale internationale. Revue québécoise de droit international / Quebec Journal of International Law / Revista quebequense de derecho internacional. 27 (1), 113-141. Doi.org/10.7202/1068048ar (in French)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B10"><label>10.</label><mixed-citation>Dörr, O. &amp; Schmalenbach, K. (2018) Article 31: General rule of interpretation. In: Dörr, O. &amp; Schmalenbach, K. (eds). Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties: A commentary. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. pp. 587-588. Doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-19291-3_34</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B11"><label>11.</label><mixed-citation>Edlin, D. (2006) The Anxiety of Sovereignty: Britain, The United States, and The International Criminal Court. Boston College International &amp; Comparative Law Review. 29(1). Available from: https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/iclr/vol29/iss1/2 [Accessed 10th November 2020]</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B12"><label>12.</label><mixed-citation>Elias, O. &amp; Quast, A. (2003) The relationship between the Security Council and the International Criminal Court in the light of Resolution 1422 (2002). Non-State Actors and International Law. 3(2-3), 165-185. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/157180703322765049</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B13"><label>13.</label><mixed-citation>Faulhaber, L. (2003) American Service Members’ Protection Act of 2002. Harvard Journal on Legislation. (40), 537-557</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B14"><label>14.</label><mixed-citation>Franceschet, A. (2004) The Rule of Law, Inequality, and the International Criminal Court. Alternatives. 29(1), 23-42. Doi: 10.1177/030437540402900102</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B15"><label>15.</label><mixed-citation>Frédérique, C. (2003) Sur un Etat tiers bien peu discret: les Etats-Unis confrontés au statut de la Cour pénale internationale. Annuaire français de droit international XLIX. CNRS Éditions, Paris. pp. 39-40. (in French)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B16"><label>16.</label><mixed-citation>Garrod, M. (2018) Unraveling the Confused Relationship Between Treaty Obligations to Extradite or Prosecute and “Universal Jurisdiction” in the Light of the Habre Case. Harvard International Law Journal. 59(1), 125-196</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B17"><label>17.</label><mixed-citation>Grossman, M. (2004) American Foreign policy and the international Criminal Court in The International Criminal Court: Global Politics and the Quest for Justice. In: William J. Driscoll, Joseph P. Zompetti &amp; Suzette Zompetti (eds.), International debate Association</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B18"><label>18.</label><mixed-citation>Heller, K.J. (2011) The Nuremberg Military Tribunals and the Origins of International Criminal Law. Oxford, Oxford University Press</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B19"><label>19.</label><mixed-citation>Jain, N. (2005) A Separate Law for Peacekeepers: The Clash between the Security Council and the International Criminal Court. European Journal of International Law. 16(2), 239-254. Doi: 10.1093/ejil/chi116</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B20"><label>20.</label><mixed-citation>Jallow, H. (2009) Justice and the Rule of Law: A Global Perspective. The International Lawyer. 43(1), 77-81</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B21"><label>21.</label><mixed-citation>James, C. &amp; Terry, P. (2013) The War on Terror: The Legal Dimension. Rowman &amp; Littlefield Publishers</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B22"><label>22.</label><mixed-citation>Kreb, C. &amp; Prost, K. (2015) Article 88. In: Triffterer, O. &amp; Ambos, K. (eds) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary. Third Edition. Munich, Oxford, BadenBaden: C.H.Beck, Hart, Nomos</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B23"><label>23.</label><mixed-citation>Lawrence, F. (1989) The Nuremberg Principles: A Defense for Political Protester. Hastings law journal. 40(2), 397-436</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B24"><label>24.</label><mixed-citation>Lind, C. (2017) Article 98. In: Klamberg, M (eds.). A Commentary on the law of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary. Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher Brussels. pp. 663-668</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B25"><label>25.</label><mixed-citation>Mochochoko, P. (2001) The Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court. Fordham International Law Journal. 25(3), 638-664</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B26"><label>26.</label><mixed-citation>Pellet, A. (2009) La juridiction pénale internationale de Nuremberg à La Haye. Revue d’histoire de la Shoah. (156), 95. (in French)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B27"><label>27.</label><mixed-citation>Sadat, L.N. &amp; Drumbl, M.A. (2016) The United States and the International Criminal Court: A Complicated, Uneasy, Yet at Times Engaging Relationship. Washington University in St. Louis Legal Studies Research Paper Series</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B28"><label>28.</label><mixed-citation>Scharf, M. (2012) Universal Jurisdiction and the Crime of Aggression. Harvard International Law Journal. 53(2), 357-390</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B29"><label>29.</label><mixed-citation>Schöpfel, A. (2013) La voix des juges français dans les procès de Nuremberg et de Tokyo. Défense d'une idée de justice universelle. Guerres mondiales et conflits contemporains. 249(1), 101-114. Doi.org/10.3917/gmcc.249.0101 (in French)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B30"><label>30.</label><mixed-citation>Shaghaji, D. (2015) L'obligation Erga Omnes d'extrader ou de poursuivre á l'encontre des crimes de Jus Cogens commis hors du territoire de l'Etat du for, Revue électronique de l’AIDP. Available from: http://www.penal.org/sites/default/files/files/A-4.pdf (in French)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B31"><label>31.</label><mixed-citation>Stahn, C. (2003) The Ambiguities of Security Council Resolution 1422 (2002). European Journal of International law. 14(1), 85-104</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B32"><label>32.</label><mixed-citation>Stromseth, J. (2011) The International Criminal Court and Justice on the Ground. Arizone State Law Journal. (43), 427-445</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B33"><label>33.</label><mixed-citation>Trahan, J. (2013) The Relationship Between the International Criminal Court and the U.N. Security Council: Parameters and Best Practices. Criminal Law Forum. (24), 417-473. Doi.org/10.1007/s10609-013-9213-9</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B34"><label>34.</label><mixed-citation>Wexler, Leila Sadat (1996) The Proposed Permanent International Criminal Court: An Appraisal. Cornell international law journal. 29(3), 665-726</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B35"><label>35.</label><mixed-citation>Wind, M. (2009) Challenging sovereignty? The USA and the establishment of the International Criminal Court. Ethics &amp; Global Politics. 2(2), 83-108</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B36"><label>36.</label><mixed-citation>Yanev, L. (2015) A Janus-Faced concept: Nuremberg law on conspiracy vis-à-vis the notion of joint criminal enterprise. Criminal Law Forum. (26), 419-456. Doi.org/10.1007/s10609-015-9262-3</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>
