... The United States of America adopted so-called American
Servicemembers Protection Act - ASPA. President George Bush
signed it into law on August 2, 2002. In such a way the United
States definitely defined its stand on the International Criminal
Court, which was created at the diplomatic conference under the
auspices of the United Nations in Rome in July 1998. Its Statute
came into force on July 1, 2002 after receiving 6o ratifications.
Yugoslavia also ratified it ("Official Gazette of the FRY", No.5/2001).
(...)
Legally speaking, KFOR and UNMIK which are in Kosovo and Metohija,
are on the Yugoslav territory. Yugoslavia is a state party
to the ICC from the very first day of its existence, July 1, 2002.
Legally speaking, therefore, the members of KFOR and UNMIK
would be under the jurisdiction of the ICC if they commit some
of crimes in the competence of the ICC whether they are
Americans or not.
However, it seems that the position of KFOR is different from
the position of UNMIK. Namely, in the Military-technical
Agreement, which Yugoslavia had to sign, there is the following
more than the colonial provision: "The international security
force ("KFOR") nor any of its personnel or staff shall be liable
for any damages to public or private property that they may
cause in the course of duties related to the implementation
of this Agreement. The parties will agree a Status of Forces
Agreement (SOFA) as soon as possible". If the SOFA was not
concluded as was intended - and as far as I know this is the case -
the members of KFOR would be under the jurisdiction of the ICC
(for UNMIK it is undeniable). Probably, the U.S. will request
the conclusion of an agreement exempting the Americans from the
ICC's jurisdiction whether members of KFOR or UNMIK.
SFOR is in Bosnia-Herzegovina on the basis of the Dayton
Accords. Annex 1A contains also so-called SOFA (Status of Forces
Agreement) containing classic standards of the status of foreign
troops on the territory of a foreign country. That status in
effect means that the troops remain under the jurisdiction of
a sending state, which means exemption from criminal
jurisdiction of the receiving state. If the article 98 of the
Statute of the ICC means that bilateral treaties prevail over
the Statute - it seems that that is the meaning of that article,
although it is not clear - then members of SFOR in
Bosnia-Herzegovina are not under the jurisdiction of the ICC
but are under the provisions of the SOFA.
(Excerpted from:
"UNITED STATES ADOPTED LAW AGAINST INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT"
by Dr. Milan Tepavac, Belgrade, 04 August 2002 - Published on
http://www.artel.co.yu
A serbocroation version is attached at the end.)
===*===
Kostunica: U.S. DEMANDS UNDERMINE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ORDER
BELGRADE, Aug 13 (Beta) - Yugoslav President Vojislav Kostunica said on
Aug. 12 that acceptance of the U.S. agreeement exempting U.S. citizens
from extradition to the new International Criminal Court would
seriously undermine the international legal order.
Kostunica said that signing such an agreement would undermine legal
systems of the countries which ratified the Rome treaty on establishing
the court.
He added that the issue would decide the future of the new international
legal institution.
Kostunica said that the establishment of a permanent court would prevent
selectivity so often ascribed to the Hague tribunal and that the new
court has to be able to put everyone on trial.
Kostunica speaks out against US immunity request
BELGRADE, Aug13(Reuters) Yugoslav President Vojislav Kostunica
yesterday spoke out against a US request for a bilateral agreement
to prevent American citizens from being handed over to the new
International Criminal Court (ICC).
"Those who would enjoy immunity from prosecution would not only sleep
soundly, but would also be encouraged to keep committing crimes," was
quoted as saying yesterday evening. The US, which has some 5,000
peacekeepers in Kosovo, opposes the new court and has approached
countries to negotiate bilateral agreements to avoid prosecution of
American personnel. Kostunica, a lawyer by trade, claimed such an
agreement would undermine international law.
Sense news agency reported yesterday that Yugoslavia?s aspirations to
join NATO?s Partnership for Peace could hinge on its response to the
US request.
"The real question is whether this court will try everyone and really be
a court or try only some and, in that case, will not be a court," the
Yugoslav president argued.
Svilanovic: Yugoslavia supports work of International Criminal Court
BELGRADE, Aug 15 (Tanjug) - Yugoslavia has received from the United
States a proposal to sign a bilateral agreement which would prevent the
extradition of US citizens to the new International Criminal Court, but
no definite decision has been made about this at this time, Yugoslav
Foreign Minister Goran Svilanovic has said.
Speaking for prime-time news on national television RTS late Wednesday,
Svilanovic said the country's position was clear. "We support the work
of the International Criminal Court. I personally signed a document
stating that our parliament has ratified the agreement making us a
founder-country of that court," he said.
"We will discuss the US proposal, naturally, primarily with
member-states of the International Criminal Court, also in particular
with member-states of the European Union. That decision has not been
made at this time," Svilanovic said.
"We will carefully follow the dialogue under way at this time between
the European Union, actually the member-signatories and founders of the
International Criminal Court, and we are among them, and the United
States, and we shall see whether it is possible to arrive at a
compromise or not.
In any case, we will not hurry with this decision, bearing in mind our
obligations to the International Criminal Court and our expectations
about future cooperation both with the European Union and the United
States," Svilanovic said.
SVILANOVIC: Belgrade waiting on EU-US dialogue
BELGRADE/LJUBLJANA, Avg 15 (B92) Yugoslavia will wait for talks between
the EU and US before deciding whether to accept an American proposal for
indemnity for US citizens from prosecution by the International Criminal
Court, Yugoslavia's foreign minister told B92 yesterday.
"It is well-known that Yugoslavia welcomes the founding and work of the
International Criminal Court, and as far as the US proposal is concerned
we will consult with other members of the court, particularly with EU
members," said Goran Svilanovic.
The US is seeking a series of bilateral agreements guaranteeing American
civilians and military personnel serving abroad will not find themselves
before the new international court.
Svilanovic said Belgrade was "in no hurry" to make its decision. "This
is a serious and delicate question which concerns our country's
international obligations."
The foreign minister claimed the issue need not threaten relations
between Belgrade and Washington: "The delicacy of this issue relates
not only to bilateral relations between the US and Yugoslavia, but to a
broader global plan of defining relations between the leading political
actors," he said.
Belgrade will use the announced visit of US Ambassador-at-Large for War
Crimes Issues Pierre Richard Prosper to discuss the issue further, added
Svilanovic.
Slovenia has already rejected the proposal and Croatia is reported to be
considering also turning it down. Yugoslav President Vojislav Kostunica
spoke out against the deal last week, claiming it flew in the face of
international law.
US plays down Kostunica opposition to immunity deal
WASHINGTON, Avg 15 (Sense) Washington sees the Yugoslav president's
rejection of its request for a bilateral agreement on US indemnity from
prosecution before the International Criminal Court as his personal
stance, and not Belgrade's official response, Sense news agency reports
today.
Sense quoted a White House official as saying talks with America's
"allies and partners are in their initial stages" and that it was too
early to draw any concrete conclusions.
Yugoslav President Vojislav Kostunica this week dismissed the deal as a
potential violation of international law. "Those who would enjoy
immunity from prosecution would not only sleep soundly, but would also
be encouraged to keep committing crimes," he was quoted as saying.
The US is said to be particularly keen on securing Yugoslavia's
agreement since almost half America's peacekeeping force is serving in
the Yugoslav province of Kosovo.
The US official said there was no link between the request for immunity
and Yugoslavia's bid to join the Partnership for Peace.
PRIME MINISTER: YUGOSLAVIA MUST NOT RUSH WITH SIGNING AGREEMENT WITH U.S
belgrade, aug 18 (Beta) -yugoslav prime minister Dragisa Pesic has said
that Yugoslavia must not rush with deciding on whether to sign a
bilateral agreement with the u.s. "for a simple reason -- a negative
answer could worsen our relations with America."
Pesic confirmed that Yugoslavia received an official proposal from the
u.s. for signing an inter-state agreement granting u.s. citizens
immunity
before the international criminal court.
He said he expected official Brussels to very quickly define "a final
stand on America's proposal on signing bilateral agreements, on the
basis
of which the most influential country of the world could avoid the
jurisdiction of the newly founded International Criminal Court."
"The federation of Serbia and Montenegro is striving towards EU
membership and, accordingly, we must be on the political course of the
organization we would like to join," Pesic said.
===*===
ARTEL GEOPOLITIKA by www.artel.co.yu
office@...
Datum:08. avgust 2002.
SJEDINJENE DR?AVE USVOJILE ZAKON PROTIV ME?UNARODNOG
KRIVICNOG SUDA
Dr Milan Tepavac
miltep@...
Beograd, 05. avgust 2002. god.
Sjedinjene Americke Dr?ave usvojile su tzv. Zakon o
zastiti americkih pripadnika oru?anih snaga (American
Servicemembers Protection Act - ASPA). Predsednik Bus
potpisao ga je 2. avgusta 2002. Time su SAD
definitivno odredile svoj stav prema stalnom
Medjunarodnom krivicnom sudu ciji je Statut usvojen na
diplomatskoj konferenciji pod okriljem Ujedninjenih
nacija u julu mesecu 1998. godine, a koji je stupio na
snagu 1. jula 2002. godine nakon sto ga je
ratifikovalo 6o dr?ava, medu njima i Jugoslavija
("Slu?beni list SRJ" br. 5/2001). Dakle, s jedne
strane potpuno negiraju medunarodno krivicno sudovanje
u principu, a s druge strane vrse stalan pritisak na
Jugoslaviju i Republiku Srpsku radi "pune saradnje" sa
nelegalnim i nelegitimnim tzv. Haskim tribunalom!
I. AMERIKA U PRINCIPU NE PRIZNAJE ME?UNARODNO KRIVICNO
SUDOVANJE PA NI STALNI ME?UNARODNI KRIVICNI SUD
Sjedinjene Americke Dr?ave su odmah nakon diplomatske
konferencije u Rimu 1998. stavile do znanja da nece da
ratifikuju Statut Medunarodnog krivicnog suda (MKS)
usvojen na toj konferenciji, te, na taj nacin, nece
priznavati ovaj sud. Ni finansiranje tog suda niti
bilo kakav vid saradnje sa njim ne dolazi u obzir.
Americki vlastodrsci su ovu odluku saopstili
generalnom sekretaru Ujedinjenih nacija upravo nedavno
kada su ujedno pojacali svoj pritisak na Jugoslaviju
da mora da udovolji svim zahtevima njihovog ilegalnog
"suda", takozvanog Medunarodnog tribunala za prethodnu
Jugoslaviju, na prvom mestu isporucivanje svih koje
"tribunal" zahteva i predaju svih dokumenata koje
dr?ava Jugoslavija ima a relevantni su za "tribunal"!
Isti njihov ambasador koji vrslja po Jugoslaviji,
preti i ucenjuje tim haskim "sudom" , Pierre-Richard
Prosper, po svetu objasnjava zasto su SAD kategoricno
protiv MKS!!
Osnovne karakteristike ovog suda
Statut MKS usvojen je na diplomatskoj konferenciji UN
u Rimu 1998. godine. Posto je ovih dana polo?en
sezdeseti ratifikacioni instrument, Statut je stupio
na snagu 1. jula ove godine. Jugoslavija je Statut
ratifikovala 22.juna 2001, a objavljen je u "Slu?benom
listu SRJ", br. 5 od 27. juna 2001. Sediste suda bice
u Hagu.
Prema clanu 5 Statuta, ovaj sud ima nadle?nost u
pogledu sledecih krivicnih dela: genocida, zlocina
protiv covecnosti, ratnih zlocina i agresije kako su
ova medunarodna krivicna dela definisana u Statutu.
Ustvari, sud nema nadle?nosti u pogledu agresije, jer
je to pitanje odgodeno za sedam godina naokon stupanja
na snagu Statuta, posto se na diplomatskoj
konferenciji nije mogla postici saglasnost niti oko
definicije agresije, niti oko nadle?nosti suda u
pogledu ovog najte?eg medunarpodnog krivicnog dela iz
koga ustvari proisticu sva ostala navedena dela.
Ponovilo se, ustvari ono, sto su autori takozvanog
Medunarodnog krivicnog suda za prethodnu Jugoslaviju
(ICTY) zlonamerno - anticipirajuci agresiju na
Jugoslaviju - smislili: iskljuciti nadle?nost suda u
pogledu agresije! tako da velike sile, pre svih SAD,
mogu da rade sta hoce. Svidalo se to nekome ili ne,
Karla del Ponte je formalno u pravu kada veli da ICTY
nije nadle?an za agresiju NATO pakta na
Jugosaviju.Tako su hteli kreatori ICTY i tako su
zapisali u njegovom statutu!
Kada se govori o MKS treba imati na umu da je on,
prema clanu 11 Statuta, nadle?an samo u pogledu onih
navedenih medunarodnih krivicnih dela koja su ucinjena
nakon stupanja na snagu Statuta, to jest nakon 1. jula
2002. Ono sto se dogodilo pre toga nije u nadle?nosti
ovog suda. Pojela maca. Nema veze Hirosima, nema veze
Hagasaki, nema veze Drezden, nema veze Vijetnam, nema
veze Kambod?a, nema veze Indonezija, nema veze Istocni
Timor, nema veze Grenada, nema veze Panama, nema veze
agresija na Jugoslaviju, nema veze secesionisticki
ratovi u Jugoslaviji (unutrasnja agresija), nema veze
Avganistan, nema veze D?enin. Ima veze samo Srbi i
Ruanda! - Dakle, nije usvojen princip da je uslov za
krivicnu odgovornost pred ovim sudom opsti princip
krivicnog prava da je u vreme izvrsenja krivicnog dela
odredeno ponasanje bilo inkriminisano kao krivicno
delo, nego stupanje na snagu Statuta. Prema tome, oni
koji su do 1.jula 2002. pocinili bilo koje od
navedenih krivicnih dela ne treba da strahuju od ovog
suda!
Ponovimo da je sud nadle?an u pogledu genocida,
zlocina protiv covecnosti i ratnih zlocina onako kako
su ova krivicna dela formulisana u Statutu (clanovi 6,
7 i 8). Ali, clan 21 ovlascuje sud da primenjuje i
druge izvore medunarodnog prava kada sud nade da
formulacije iz Statuta nisu adekvatne. Ovo je, cini mi
se, dosta interesantna odredba koja omogucuje da sud,
ustvari, mo?e da primenjuje opste medunarodno kricno
pravo pri donosenju svojih odluka.
Razila?enje saveznika
Po pitanju ovog suda doslo je do otvorenog neslaganja,
pa i sukoba, izmedu Sjedinjenih Dr?ava s jedne, i
Kanade i dr?ava clanica Evropske unije s druge strane.
Kanada ne samo da je ratifikovala Statut nego je bila
jedan od inicijatora citavog nastojanja da se osnuje
jedan stalni medunarodni krivicni sud. Sve clanice EU
su takode medu prvima ratifikovale Statut, ukljucujuci
cak i Veliku Britaniju i Nemacku. Amerikanci su se
citavo vreme dr?ali rezervisano prema samoj ideji
osnivanja ovakvog suda. Oni su ucestvovali i na
osnivackoj konferenciji u Rimu, ali ne da bi doprineli
ostvarivanju ideje koja je stara par vekova medu
medunarodnim pravnicima, nego da bi minirali tu ideju.
Ali, to im je samo delimicno poslo za rukom (na primer
fakticno iskljucivanje agresije iz nadle?nosti suda).
Pod velikim pritiskom saveznika predsednik Klinton je
cak i potpisao Statut, ali je i tom prilikom dao na
znanje da ga nece slati na ratifikaciju u Senat ne
samo zato sto mu je bilo dobro poznato da Senat nece
ni da cuje za ratifikaciju, nego i zato sto ni njegova
administracija nije bila za ratifikaciju.
Predsednik Bus i njgova administracija ne samo da su
obavestile generalnog sekretara UN da ne nameravaju da
priznaju MKS, nego su ucinili i potez bez presedana u
medunarodnom pravu i medunarodnim odnosima: obavestili
su UN da "povlace potpis" Klintona sa Statuta! Ovo je
izazvalo pravi revolt saveznika, a narocito hiljada i
hiljada raznih medunarodnih organizacija "za zastitu
ljudskih prava" koje su bile glavni proponenti
osnivanja MKS, praveci pritisak na svoje dr?ave.
Amerikanci svoj odbojan stav objasnjavaju tako sto
vele da sud mo?e da ugrozi nacionalne interese SAD,
mo?e biti politicki motivisan, da mogu biti ugro?eni
americki funkcioneri i gradani, a narocito njihovi
vojnici. Zato su SAD ne samo protiv MKS, vec u
Kongresu je predlog zakona kojim se predvida mogucnost
da predsednik mo?e narediti i upotrebu sile protiv
svake one dr?ave koja bi za racun tog suda uhapsila
Amerikanca kao i mogucnost drugih mera protiv takve
dr?ave, kao sto je uskracivanje ekonomske i vojne
pomoci svakoj zamlji koja ratfikuje pristupanje ovom
sudu! Od svake dr?ave, na cijoj se teritoriji nalaze
trupe SAD po bilo kom osnovu tra?ice se da se obave?u
da nece saradivati sa MKS kada se radi o Amerikancima.
Rusija, Kina...
Rusija i Kina nisu tako kategoricno protiv MKS, ali
nisu ni za njega. Igraju nekakvu cudnu igru tako sto
ne nastupaju otvoreno protiv suda, ali ne predla?u
njegovu ratifikaciju. Putin se plasi da bi zbog
Cecenije mogao da do?ivi sudbinu Slobodana Milosevica,
a bogami i Kinezi imaju razloga za strahovanje zbog
pitanja ljudskih prava tamo kod njih...Dakle, sa
ovakvim odnosom SAD, Rusije i Kine prema ovom sudu
ostaje otvoreno pitanje kako ce uopste ta institucija
da proradi i kako ce u praksi funkcionisati. Ostaje,
dakle, da vreme poka?e da li su kreatori ove
institucije idealisti ili su ipak u kakvoj-takvoj
saglasnosti sa politickom realnoscu savremenog sveta.
II. USVAJANJE ZAKONA PROTIV ME?UNARODNOG KRIVICNOG
SUDA
Dakle, kao sledeci korak prema potpunom negiranju
prava medunarodne zajednice da organizuje svima
prihvatljivo organizovanje medunarodog krivicnog
sudovanja za najte?a medunarodna krivicna dela na
nacin kako je to predvideno za osnovani Medunarodni
krivicni sud SAD su pribegle zaista drakonskoj meri
koja je iznenadila cak i njihove najprivr?enije
prijatelje - kao sto su dr?ave clanice EU - usvajanjem
Zakona o zastiti pripadnika americkih oru?anih snaga.
U najkracem, ovim se zakonom:
- za branjuje SAD bilo kakva sradnja sa MKS,
- ogranicava ucesce SAD u mirovnim operacijama UN,
- zabranjuje vojna pomoc vecini zemalja koje su
ratifikovale Statut MKS,
- ovlascuje predsednik SAD da upotrebi "sva pogodna i
potrebna sredstva" da oslobodi svakog pripadnika
personala SAD i saveznika koji bi se nasli u vlasti
MKS ili u njegovo ime.
Zakonom se zabranjuje slanje americkih trupa u zemlje
koje saraduju sa Medunarodnim krivicnim sudom. Zabrana
se ne odnosi na zemlje NATO, Japan, Ju?nu Koreju i
druge glavne americke saveznike, kao ni na Tajvan (sto
je odmah izazvalo reakciju Pekinga).
Protivnici ovog zakona vec su ga nazvali "Zakon o
invaziji Haga". I to naravno sa razlogom. Jer, sta
drugo mo?e da znaci ovlascenje predsedniku da mo?e da
upotrebi "sva pogodna i potrebna sredstva" da oslobodi
Amerikance ili njihove saveznike koji bi se nasli u
rukama MKS organa ili organa koji rade za njihov racun
nego da je ovlasten da upotrebi i oru?anu silu.
Evropska unija je nasla za shodno da posebno uka?e na
ovu odredbu zakona, upozoravajuci na sve negativne
posledice koje ce ona imati po odnose EU-SAD.
Da bi se ubla?io u svetu negativan odjek ove mere SAD,
autori zakona su pribegli jednom upravo neshvatljivom
i nemoralnom triku time sto su u sam tekst zakona
uneli sledecu odredbu politicke prirode u najru?nijem
smislu ove reci: "Nothing in this title shall prohibit
the United States from rendering assistance to
international efforts to bring to justice Saddam
Hussein, Slobodan Milosovic, Osama bin Laden, other
members of Al Queda, leaders of Islamic Jihad, and
other foreign nationals accused of genocide, war
crimes or crimes against humanity", izjednacavajuci
tako Slobodana Milosevica sa Sadamom Huseinom, Osamom
bin Ladenom, pripadnicima Al Kaide i liderima
Islamskog D?ihada! U ovih poslednjih dvanaestak godina
navikli smo na mnoge zlocine, la?i i obmane od
americkih zakonodavaca, ali ovakvu i ovoliku podlost
nismo sigurno ocekivali.
Pritisci na Savet bezbednosti UN
Dvanaestog jula 2002. Amerikancima je poslo za rukom
da primoraju Savet bezbednosti UN da prihvati
rezoluciju po osnovu koje se za 12 meseci odla?e
nadle?nopst MKS, cime se znatno, na samom startu
njegovog postojanja, umanjuje njegov autoritet. Do
usvajanja ove rezolucije je doslo nakod visenedeljnih
pritisaka na clanove Saveta bezbednosti da se ovakva
rezolucija prihvati, medu njima dr?ave EU, Kanada i
Meksiko. Amerikanci su pretili da ce, ako se ovakva
rezolucija ne usvoji, SAD odmah povuci sve svoje snage
iz svih mirovnih misija u svetu. I ne samo to. U samoj
rezoluciji se navodi da ce ona, po potrebi, biti
produ?avana godisnje, sto znaci trajno umanjivanje
bilo kakvog prakticnog znacaja MKS. Rezolucija se
odnosi na sve mirovne misije za koje je Savet
bezbednosti dao svoj pristanak, ukljucujuci NATO
misiju u Avganistanu, a posebno na personal u ovim
misijama koji je iz zemalja koje nisu clanice MKS
(koje nisu ratifikovale njegov Statut).
Pritisci na dr?ave koje su ratifikovale Statut MKS
Sjedinjene Americke Dr?ave nisu se zaustavile na
pritiscima na Savet bezbednosti, nego su nastavile da
to cine pojedinacno prema onim dr?avama koje su
postale clanice MKS. U tu svrhu koriste clan 98
Statuta MKS predvida mogucnost zakljucivanja
bilateralnih ugovora o neizrucivanju. Za zakljucivanje
ovakvih ugovora, koji dalje umanjuju znacaj MKS, pod
posebnim pritiskom SAD su dr?ave clanice Evropska
unije. Evropska unija je formirala posebno telo koje
ima zadatak da predlo?i jednu zajednicku platformu
politike Unije na ovakve zahteve SAD.
Posebno je na udaru Holandija u kojoj se nalazi
sediste MKS. Holandija za sada pru?a otpor
nastojanjima SAD da s njom zakljuce bilaterlani ugovor
po osnovu clana 98 Statuta. "Nasa pozicija je u tom
pogledu ista kao pozicija EU i ona je potpuno jasna",
izjavljuje ministar inostranih poslova Holandije.
"Pristajanje na nekakav izuzetak znacilo bi
umanjivanje znacaja suda". Rumunija je, pak,
preduhitrila sve, i prva je zakljucila takav soprazum
sa SAD.
Upravo sada kada zavrsavam pisanje ovog teksta
(6.avgust 2002. ujutro) imam informaciju na Internetu
da su SAD i Izrael zakljuciliisti sporazum. Prema
izdatom saopstenju, "According to the pact, both
countries agreed not to extradite, transfer or
surrender the citizens of one another's country to the
ICC or to a third country, which might transfer them
to The Hague, where the court is located."
Polozaj KFOR i UNMIK u Jugoslaviji i SFOR u BiH
Pravno gledano, KFOR i UNMIK koji deluju na Kosovu i
Metohiji deluje na teritoriji Jugoslavije. Jugoslavija
je, rekli smo, ratifikovala Statut MKS i on je u
odnosu na nju stupio na snagu. 1. jula 2002.
Pripadnici KFOR i UNMIK, pravno gledano, podlo?ni su
nadle?nosti MKS ako bi pocinili neko od krivicnih dela
iz nadle?nosti MKS. To se odnosi na svakog pripadnika
KFOR-a i UNMIK-a, na Amerikance i sve ostale.
Medjutim, po svemu sudeci, polo?aj pripadnika KFOR
razlikuje se od polo?aja UNMIK-a. Naime, u
Vojno-tehnickom sporazumu, koji je Jugoslavija morala
da potpise, koji regulise polo?aj KFOR, ali ne i
UNMIK, ima jedna neverovatna kolonijalna odredba koja
glasi: "The international security force ("KFOR") nor
any of its personnel or staff shall be liable for any
damages to public or private property that they may
cause in the course of duties related to the
implementation of this Agreement. The parties will
agree a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) as soon as
possible". Buduci da sporazum o statusu KFOR-a (SOFA),
koliko je meni poznato, nije zakljucen izmedju
Jugoslavije i KFOR-a kao sto je to bilo planirano,
pripadnici KFOR-a bi mogli biti odgovorni pred MKS (za
UNMIK to je nesporno). Verovatno ce SAD ovo pitanje
pokrenuti, pa ce od Jugoslavije tra?iti potpisivanje
sporazuma o neizrucenju Amerikanaca, bili oni
pripadnici KFOR-a ili UNMIK-a.
Pripadnici SFOR-a u Bosni i Hercegovini su tamo na
osnovu Dejtonskog sporazuma. Aneks 1A tog sporazuma
sadrzi SOFA-u kojim je na klasican nacin regulisan
status pripadnika stranih oru?anih snaga na teritoriji
dr?ave koja ih je primila. Taj status se svodi na to
da vojnici ostaju u vlasti dr?ave koja ih je poslala,
to jest izuzeti su od krivicne jurisdikcije
teritorijalne drzave. Ako clan 98 Statuta MKS ustvari
znaci da bilateralni sporazumi imaju prevagu u odnosu
na Statut - izgleda da je to njegov smisao mada nije
jasno - onda pripadnici SFOR-a u BiH ne spadaju pod
jurisdikciju MKS vec pod odredbe SOFA koji cini
sastavni deo Dejtonskog sporazuma.
Servicemembers Protection Act - ASPA. President George Bush
signed it into law on August 2, 2002. In such a way the United
States definitely defined its stand on the International Criminal
Court, which was created at the diplomatic conference under the
auspices of the United Nations in Rome in July 1998. Its Statute
came into force on July 1, 2002 after receiving 6o ratifications.
Yugoslavia also ratified it ("Official Gazette of the FRY", No.5/2001).
(...)
Legally speaking, KFOR and UNMIK which are in Kosovo and Metohija,
are on the Yugoslav territory. Yugoslavia is a state party
to the ICC from the very first day of its existence, July 1, 2002.
Legally speaking, therefore, the members of KFOR and UNMIK
would be under the jurisdiction of the ICC if they commit some
of crimes in the competence of the ICC whether they are
Americans or not.
However, it seems that the position of KFOR is different from
the position of UNMIK. Namely, in the Military-technical
Agreement, which Yugoslavia had to sign, there is the following
more than the colonial provision: "The international security
force ("KFOR") nor any of its personnel or staff shall be liable
for any damages to public or private property that they may
cause in the course of duties related to the implementation
of this Agreement. The parties will agree a Status of Forces
Agreement (SOFA) as soon as possible". If the SOFA was not
concluded as was intended - and as far as I know this is the case -
the members of KFOR would be under the jurisdiction of the ICC
(for UNMIK it is undeniable). Probably, the U.S. will request
the conclusion of an agreement exempting the Americans from the
ICC's jurisdiction whether members of KFOR or UNMIK.
SFOR is in Bosnia-Herzegovina on the basis of the Dayton
Accords. Annex 1A contains also so-called SOFA (Status of Forces
Agreement) containing classic standards of the status of foreign
troops on the territory of a foreign country. That status in
effect means that the troops remain under the jurisdiction of
a sending state, which means exemption from criminal
jurisdiction of the receiving state. If the article 98 of the
Statute of the ICC means that bilateral treaties prevail over
the Statute - it seems that that is the meaning of that article,
although it is not clear - then members of SFOR in
Bosnia-Herzegovina are not under the jurisdiction of the ICC
but are under the provisions of the SOFA.
(Excerpted from:
"UNITED STATES ADOPTED LAW AGAINST INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT"
by Dr. Milan Tepavac, Belgrade, 04 August 2002 - Published on
http://www.artel.co.yu
A serbocroation version is attached at the end.)
===*===
Kostunica: U.S. DEMANDS UNDERMINE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ORDER
BELGRADE, Aug 13 (Beta) - Yugoslav President Vojislav Kostunica said on
Aug. 12 that acceptance of the U.S. agreeement exempting U.S. citizens
from extradition to the new International Criminal Court would
seriously undermine the international legal order.
Kostunica said that signing such an agreement would undermine legal
systems of the countries which ratified the Rome treaty on establishing
the court.
He added that the issue would decide the future of the new international
legal institution.
Kostunica said that the establishment of a permanent court would prevent
selectivity so often ascribed to the Hague tribunal and that the new
court has to be able to put everyone on trial.
Kostunica speaks out against US immunity request
BELGRADE, Aug13(Reuters) Yugoslav President Vojislav Kostunica
yesterday spoke out against a US request for a bilateral agreement
to prevent American citizens from being handed over to the new
International Criminal Court (ICC).
"Those who would enjoy immunity from prosecution would not only sleep
soundly, but would also be encouraged to keep committing crimes," was
quoted as saying yesterday evening. The US, which has some 5,000
peacekeepers in Kosovo, opposes the new court and has approached
countries to negotiate bilateral agreements to avoid prosecution of
American personnel. Kostunica, a lawyer by trade, claimed such an
agreement would undermine international law.
Sense news agency reported yesterday that Yugoslavia?s aspirations to
join NATO?s Partnership for Peace could hinge on its response to the
US request.
"The real question is whether this court will try everyone and really be
a court or try only some and, in that case, will not be a court," the
Yugoslav president argued.
Svilanovic: Yugoslavia supports work of International Criminal Court
BELGRADE, Aug 15 (Tanjug) - Yugoslavia has received from the United
States a proposal to sign a bilateral agreement which would prevent the
extradition of US citizens to the new International Criminal Court, but
no definite decision has been made about this at this time, Yugoslav
Foreign Minister Goran Svilanovic has said.
Speaking for prime-time news on national television RTS late Wednesday,
Svilanovic said the country's position was clear. "We support the work
of the International Criminal Court. I personally signed a document
stating that our parliament has ratified the agreement making us a
founder-country of that court," he said.
"We will discuss the US proposal, naturally, primarily with
member-states of the International Criminal Court, also in particular
with member-states of the European Union. That decision has not been
made at this time," Svilanovic said.
"We will carefully follow the dialogue under way at this time between
the European Union, actually the member-signatories and founders of the
International Criminal Court, and we are among them, and the United
States, and we shall see whether it is possible to arrive at a
compromise or not.
In any case, we will not hurry with this decision, bearing in mind our
obligations to the International Criminal Court and our expectations
about future cooperation both with the European Union and the United
States," Svilanovic said.
SVILANOVIC: Belgrade waiting on EU-US dialogue
BELGRADE/LJUBLJANA, Avg 15 (B92) Yugoslavia will wait for talks between
the EU and US before deciding whether to accept an American proposal for
indemnity for US citizens from prosecution by the International Criminal
Court, Yugoslavia's foreign minister told B92 yesterday.
"It is well-known that Yugoslavia welcomes the founding and work of the
International Criminal Court, and as far as the US proposal is concerned
we will consult with other members of the court, particularly with EU
members," said Goran Svilanovic.
The US is seeking a series of bilateral agreements guaranteeing American
civilians and military personnel serving abroad will not find themselves
before the new international court.
Svilanovic said Belgrade was "in no hurry" to make its decision. "This
is a serious and delicate question which concerns our country's
international obligations."
The foreign minister claimed the issue need not threaten relations
between Belgrade and Washington: "The delicacy of this issue relates
not only to bilateral relations between the US and Yugoslavia, but to a
broader global plan of defining relations between the leading political
actors," he said.
Belgrade will use the announced visit of US Ambassador-at-Large for War
Crimes Issues Pierre Richard Prosper to discuss the issue further, added
Svilanovic.
Slovenia has already rejected the proposal and Croatia is reported to be
considering also turning it down. Yugoslav President Vojislav Kostunica
spoke out against the deal last week, claiming it flew in the face of
international law.
US plays down Kostunica opposition to immunity deal
WASHINGTON, Avg 15 (Sense) Washington sees the Yugoslav president's
rejection of its request for a bilateral agreement on US indemnity from
prosecution before the International Criminal Court as his personal
stance, and not Belgrade's official response, Sense news agency reports
today.
Sense quoted a White House official as saying talks with America's
"allies and partners are in their initial stages" and that it was too
early to draw any concrete conclusions.
Yugoslav President Vojislav Kostunica this week dismissed the deal as a
potential violation of international law. "Those who would enjoy
immunity from prosecution would not only sleep soundly, but would also
be encouraged to keep committing crimes," he was quoted as saying.
The US is said to be particularly keen on securing Yugoslavia's
agreement since almost half America's peacekeeping force is serving in
the Yugoslav province of Kosovo.
The US official said there was no link between the request for immunity
and Yugoslavia's bid to join the Partnership for Peace.
PRIME MINISTER: YUGOSLAVIA MUST NOT RUSH WITH SIGNING AGREEMENT WITH U.S
belgrade, aug 18 (Beta) -yugoslav prime minister Dragisa Pesic has said
that Yugoslavia must not rush with deciding on whether to sign a
bilateral agreement with the u.s. "for a simple reason -- a negative
answer could worsen our relations with America."
Pesic confirmed that Yugoslavia received an official proposal from the
u.s. for signing an inter-state agreement granting u.s. citizens
immunity
before the international criminal court.
He said he expected official Brussels to very quickly define "a final
stand on America's proposal on signing bilateral agreements, on the
basis
of which the most influential country of the world could avoid the
jurisdiction of the newly founded International Criminal Court."
"The federation of Serbia and Montenegro is striving towards EU
membership and, accordingly, we must be on the political course of the
organization we would like to join," Pesic said.
===*===
ARTEL GEOPOLITIKA by www.artel.co.yu
office@...
Datum:08. avgust 2002.
SJEDINJENE DR?AVE USVOJILE ZAKON PROTIV ME?UNARODNOG
KRIVICNOG SUDA
Dr Milan Tepavac
miltep@...
Beograd, 05. avgust 2002. god.
Sjedinjene Americke Dr?ave usvojile su tzv. Zakon o
zastiti americkih pripadnika oru?anih snaga (American
Servicemembers Protection Act - ASPA). Predsednik Bus
potpisao ga je 2. avgusta 2002. Time su SAD
definitivno odredile svoj stav prema stalnom
Medjunarodnom krivicnom sudu ciji je Statut usvojen na
diplomatskoj konferenciji pod okriljem Ujedninjenih
nacija u julu mesecu 1998. godine, a koji je stupio na
snagu 1. jula 2002. godine nakon sto ga je
ratifikovalo 6o dr?ava, medu njima i Jugoslavija
("Slu?beni list SRJ" br. 5/2001). Dakle, s jedne
strane potpuno negiraju medunarodno krivicno sudovanje
u principu, a s druge strane vrse stalan pritisak na
Jugoslaviju i Republiku Srpsku radi "pune saradnje" sa
nelegalnim i nelegitimnim tzv. Haskim tribunalom!
I. AMERIKA U PRINCIPU NE PRIZNAJE ME?UNARODNO KRIVICNO
SUDOVANJE PA NI STALNI ME?UNARODNI KRIVICNI SUD
Sjedinjene Americke Dr?ave su odmah nakon diplomatske
konferencije u Rimu 1998. stavile do znanja da nece da
ratifikuju Statut Medunarodnog krivicnog suda (MKS)
usvojen na toj konferenciji, te, na taj nacin, nece
priznavati ovaj sud. Ni finansiranje tog suda niti
bilo kakav vid saradnje sa njim ne dolazi u obzir.
Americki vlastodrsci su ovu odluku saopstili
generalnom sekretaru Ujedinjenih nacija upravo nedavno
kada su ujedno pojacali svoj pritisak na Jugoslaviju
da mora da udovolji svim zahtevima njihovog ilegalnog
"suda", takozvanog Medunarodnog tribunala za prethodnu
Jugoslaviju, na prvom mestu isporucivanje svih koje
"tribunal" zahteva i predaju svih dokumenata koje
dr?ava Jugoslavija ima a relevantni su za "tribunal"!
Isti njihov ambasador koji vrslja po Jugoslaviji,
preti i ucenjuje tim haskim "sudom" , Pierre-Richard
Prosper, po svetu objasnjava zasto su SAD kategoricno
protiv MKS!!
Osnovne karakteristike ovog suda
Statut MKS usvojen je na diplomatskoj konferenciji UN
u Rimu 1998. godine. Posto je ovih dana polo?en
sezdeseti ratifikacioni instrument, Statut je stupio
na snagu 1. jula ove godine. Jugoslavija je Statut
ratifikovala 22.juna 2001, a objavljen je u "Slu?benom
listu SRJ", br. 5 od 27. juna 2001. Sediste suda bice
u Hagu.
Prema clanu 5 Statuta, ovaj sud ima nadle?nost u
pogledu sledecih krivicnih dela: genocida, zlocina
protiv covecnosti, ratnih zlocina i agresije kako su
ova medunarodna krivicna dela definisana u Statutu.
Ustvari, sud nema nadle?nosti u pogledu agresije, jer
je to pitanje odgodeno za sedam godina naokon stupanja
na snagu Statuta, posto se na diplomatskoj
konferenciji nije mogla postici saglasnost niti oko
definicije agresije, niti oko nadle?nosti suda u
pogledu ovog najte?eg medunarpodnog krivicnog dela iz
koga ustvari proisticu sva ostala navedena dela.
Ponovilo se, ustvari ono, sto su autori takozvanog
Medunarodnog krivicnog suda za prethodnu Jugoslaviju
(ICTY) zlonamerno - anticipirajuci agresiju na
Jugoslaviju - smislili: iskljuciti nadle?nost suda u
pogledu agresije! tako da velike sile, pre svih SAD,
mogu da rade sta hoce. Svidalo se to nekome ili ne,
Karla del Ponte je formalno u pravu kada veli da ICTY
nije nadle?an za agresiju NATO pakta na
Jugosaviju.Tako su hteli kreatori ICTY i tako su
zapisali u njegovom statutu!
Kada se govori o MKS treba imati na umu da je on,
prema clanu 11 Statuta, nadle?an samo u pogledu onih
navedenih medunarodnih krivicnih dela koja su ucinjena
nakon stupanja na snagu Statuta, to jest nakon 1. jula
2002. Ono sto se dogodilo pre toga nije u nadle?nosti
ovog suda. Pojela maca. Nema veze Hirosima, nema veze
Hagasaki, nema veze Drezden, nema veze Vijetnam, nema
veze Kambod?a, nema veze Indonezija, nema veze Istocni
Timor, nema veze Grenada, nema veze Panama, nema veze
agresija na Jugoslaviju, nema veze secesionisticki
ratovi u Jugoslaviji (unutrasnja agresija), nema veze
Avganistan, nema veze D?enin. Ima veze samo Srbi i
Ruanda! - Dakle, nije usvojen princip da je uslov za
krivicnu odgovornost pred ovim sudom opsti princip
krivicnog prava da je u vreme izvrsenja krivicnog dela
odredeno ponasanje bilo inkriminisano kao krivicno
delo, nego stupanje na snagu Statuta. Prema tome, oni
koji su do 1.jula 2002. pocinili bilo koje od
navedenih krivicnih dela ne treba da strahuju od ovog
suda!
Ponovimo da je sud nadle?an u pogledu genocida,
zlocina protiv covecnosti i ratnih zlocina onako kako
su ova krivicna dela formulisana u Statutu (clanovi 6,
7 i 8). Ali, clan 21 ovlascuje sud da primenjuje i
druge izvore medunarodnog prava kada sud nade da
formulacije iz Statuta nisu adekvatne. Ovo je, cini mi
se, dosta interesantna odredba koja omogucuje da sud,
ustvari, mo?e da primenjuje opste medunarodno kricno
pravo pri donosenju svojih odluka.
Razila?enje saveznika
Po pitanju ovog suda doslo je do otvorenog neslaganja,
pa i sukoba, izmedu Sjedinjenih Dr?ava s jedne, i
Kanade i dr?ava clanica Evropske unije s druge strane.
Kanada ne samo da je ratifikovala Statut nego je bila
jedan od inicijatora citavog nastojanja da se osnuje
jedan stalni medunarodni krivicni sud. Sve clanice EU
su takode medu prvima ratifikovale Statut, ukljucujuci
cak i Veliku Britaniju i Nemacku. Amerikanci su se
citavo vreme dr?ali rezervisano prema samoj ideji
osnivanja ovakvog suda. Oni su ucestvovali i na
osnivackoj konferenciji u Rimu, ali ne da bi doprineli
ostvarivanju ideje koja je stara par vekova medu
medunarodnim pravnicima, nego da bi minirali tu ideju.
Ali, to im je samo delimicno poslo za rukom (na primer
fakticno iskljucivanje agresije iz nadle?nosti suda).
Pod velikim pritiskom saveznika predsednik Klinton je
cak i potpisao Statut, ali je i tom prilikom dao na
znanje da ga nece slati na ratifikaciju u Senat ne
samo zato sto mu je bilo dobro poznato da Senat nece
ni da cuje za ratifikaciju, nego i zato sto ni njegova
administracija nije bila za ratifikaciju.
Predsednik Bus i njgova administracija ne samo da su
obavestile generalnog sekretara UN da ne nameravaju da
priznaju MKS, nego su ucinili i potez bez presedana u
medunarodnom pravu i medunarodnim odnosima: obavestili
su UN da "povlace potpis" Klintona sa Statuta! Ovo je
izazvalo pravi revolt saveznika, a narocito hiljada i
hiljada raznih medunarodnih organizacija "za zastitu
ljudskih prava" koje su bile glavni proponenti
osnivanja MKS, praveci pritisak na svoje dr?ave.
Amerikanci svoj odbojan stav objasnjavaju tako sto
vele da sud mo?e da ugrozi nacionalne interese SAD,
mo?e biti politicki motivisan, da mogu biti ugro?eni
americki funkcioneri i gradani, a narocito njihovi
vojnici. Zato su SAD ne samo protiv MKS, vec u
Kongresu je predlog zakona kojim se predvida mogucnost
da predsednik mo?e narediti i upotrebu sile protiv
svake one dr?ave koja bi za racun tog suda uhapsila
Amerikanca kao i mogucnost drugih mera protiv takve
dr?ave, kao sto je uskracivanje ekonomske i vojne
pomoci svakoj zamlji koja ratfikuje pristupanje ovom
sudu! Od svake dr?ave, na cijoj se teritoriji nalaze
trupe SAD po bilo kom osnovu tra?ice se da se obave?u
da nece saradivati sa MKS kada se radi o Amerikancima.
Rusija, Kina...
Rusija i Kina nisu tako kategoricno protiv MKS, ali
nisu ni za njega. Igraju nekakvu cudnu igru tako sto
ne nastupaju otvoreno protiv suda, ali ne predla?u
njegovu ratifikaciju. Putin se plasi da bi zbog
Cecenije mogao da do?ivi sudbinu Slobodana Milosevica,
a bogami i Kinezi imaju razloga za strahovanje zbog
pitanja ljudskih prava tamo kod njih...Dakle, sa
ovakvim odnosom SAD, Rusije i Kine prema ovom sudu
ostaje otvoreno pitanje kako ce uopste ta institucija
da proradi i kako ce u praksi funkcionisati. Ostaje,
dakle, da vreme poka?e da li su kreatori ove
institucije idealisti ili su ipak u kakvoj-takvoj
saglasnosti sa politickom realnoscu savremenog sveta.
II. USVAJANJE ZAKONA PROTIV ME?UNARODNOG KRIVICNOG
SUDA
Dakle, kao sledeci korak prema potpunom negiranju
prava medunarodne zajednice da organizuje svima
prihvatljivo organizovanje medunarodog krivicnog
sudovanja za najte?a medunarodna krivicna dela na
nacin kako je to predvideno za osnovani Medunarodni
krivicni sud SAD su pribegle zaista drakonskoj meri
koja je iznenadila cak i njihove najprivr?enije
prijatelje - kao sto su dr?ave clanice EU - usvajanjem
Zakona o zastiti pripadnika americkih oru?anih snaga.
U najkracem, ovim se zakonom:
- za branjuje SAD bilo kakva sradnja sa MKS,
- ogranicava ucesce SAD u mirovnim operacijama UN,
- zabranjuje vojna pomoc vecini zemalja koje su
ratifikovale Statut MKS,
- ovlascuje predsednik SAD da upotrebi "sva pogodna i
potrebna sredstva" da oslobodi svakog pripadnika
personala SAD i saveznika koji bi se nasli u vlasti
MKS ili u njegovo ime.
Zakonom se zabranjuje slanje americkih trupa u zemlje
koje saraduju sa Medunarodnim krivicnim sudom. Zabrana
se ne odnosi na zemlje NATO, Japan, Ju?nu Koreju i
druge glavne americke saveznike, kao ni na Tajvan (sto
je odmah izazvalo reakciju Pekinga).
Protivnici ovog zakona vec su ga nazvali "Zakon o
invaziji Haga". I to naravno sa razlogom. Jer, sta
drugo mo?e da znaci ovlascenje predsedniku da mo?e da
upotrebi "sva pogodna i potrebna sredstva" da oslobodi
Amerikance ili njihove saveznike koji bi se nasli u
rukama MKS organa ili organa koji rade za njihov racun
nego da je ovlasten da upotrebi i oru?anu silu.
Evropska unija je nasla za shodno da posebno uka?e na
ovu odredbu zakona, upozoravajuci na sve negativne
posledice koje ce ona imati po odnose EU-SAD.
Da bi se ubla?io u svetu negativan odjek ove mere SAD,
autori zakona su pribegli jednom upravo neshvatljivom
i nemoralnom triku time sto su u sam tekst zakona
uneli sledecu odredbu politicke prirode u najru?nijem
smislu ove reci: "Nothing in this title shall prohibit
the United States from rendering assistance to
international efforts to bring to justice Saddam
Hussein, Slobodan Milosovic, Osama bin Laden, other
members of Al Queda, leaders of Islamic Jihad, and
other foreign nationals accused of genocide, war
crimes or crimes against humanity", izjednacavajuci
tako Slobodana Milosevica sa Sadamom Huseinom, Osamom
bin Ladenom, pripadnicima Al Kaide i liderima
Islamskog D?ihada! U ovih poslednjih dvanaestak godina
navikli smo na mnoge zlocine, la?i i obmane od
americkih zakonodavaca, ali ovakvu i ovoliku podlost
nismo sigurno ocekivali.
Pritisci na Savet bezbednosti UN
Dvanaestog jula 2002. Amerikancima je poslo za rukom
da primoraju Savet bezbednosti UN da prihvati
rezoluciju po osnovu koje se za 12 meseci odla?e
nadle?nopst MKS, cime se znatno, na samom startu
njegovog postojanja, umanjuje njegov autoritet. Do
usvajanja ove rezolucije je doslo nakod visenedeljnih
pritisaka na clanove Saveta bezbednosti da se ovakva
rezolucija prihvati, medu njima dr?ave EU, Kanada i
Meksiko. Amerikanci su pretili da ce, ako se ovakva
rezolucija ne usvoji, SAD odmah povuci sve svoje snage
iz svih mirovnih misija u svetu. I ne samo to. U samoj
rezoluciji se navodi da ce ona, po potrebi, biti
produ?avana godisnje, sto znaci trajno umanjivanje
bilo kakvog prakticnog znacaja MKS. Rezolucija se
odnosi na sve mirovne misije za koje je Savet
bezbednosti dao svoj pristanak, ukljucujuci NATO
misiju u Avganistanu, a posebno na personal u ovim
misijama koji je iz zemalja koje nisu clanice MKS
(koje nisu ratifikovale njegov Statut).
Pritisci na dr?ave koje su ratifikovale Statut MKS
Sjedinjene Americke Dr?ave nisu se zaustavile na
pritiscima na Savet bezbednosti, nego su nastavile da
to cine pojedinacno prema onim dr?avama koje su
postale clanice MKS. U tu svrhu koriste clan 98
Statuta MKS predvida mogucnost zakljucivanja
bilateralnih ugovora o neizrucivanju. Za zakljucivanje
ovakvih ugovora, koji dalje umanjuju znacaj MKS, pod
posebnim pritiskom SAD su dr?ave clanice Evropska
unije. Evropska unija je formirala posebno telo koje
ima zadatak da predlo?i jednu zajednicku platformu
politike Unije na ovakve zahteve SAD.
Posebno je na udaru Holandija u kojoj se nalazi
sediste MKS. Holandija za sada pru?a otpor
nastojanjima SAD da s njom zakljuce bilaterlani ugovor
po osnovu clana 98 Statuta. "Nasa pozicija je u tom
pogledu ista kao pozicija EU i ona je potpuno jasna",
izjavljuje ministar inostranih poslova Holandije.
"Pristajanje na nekakav izuzetak znacilo bi
umanjivanje znacaja suda". Rumunija je, pak,
preduhitrila sve, i prva je zakljucila takav soprazum
sa SAD.
Upravo sada kada zavrsavam pisanje ovog teksta
(6.avgust 2002. ujutro) imam informaciju na Internetu
da su SAD i Izrael zakljuciliisti sporazum. Prema
izdatom saopstenju, "According to the pact, both
countries agreed not to extradite, transfer or
surrender the citizens of one another's country to the
ICC or to a third country, which might transfer them
to The Hague, where the court is located."
Polozaj KFOR i UNMIK u Jugoslaviji i SFOR u BiH
Pravno gledano, KFOR i UNMIK koji deluju na Kosovu i
Metohiji deluje na teritoriji Jugoslavije. Jugoslavija
je, rekli smo, ratifikovala Statut MKS i on je u
odnosu na nju stupio na snagu. 1. jula 2002.
Pripadnici KFOR i UNMIK, pravno gledano, podlo?ni su
nadle?nosti MKS ako bi pocinili neko od krivicnih dela
iz nadle?nosti MKS. To se odnosi na svakog pripadnika
KFOR-a i UNMIK-a, na Amerikance i sve ostale.
Medjutim, po svemu sudeci, polo?aj pripadnika KFOR
razlikuje se od polo?aja UNMIK-a. Naime, u
Vojno-tehnickom sporazumu, koji je Jugoslavija morala
da potpise, koji regulise polo?aj KFOR, ali ne i
UNMIK, ima jedna neverovatna kolonijalna odredba koja
glasi: "The international security force ("KFOR") nor
any of its personnel or staff shall be liable for any
damages to public or private property that they may
cause in the course of duties related to the
implementation of this Agreement. The parties will
agree a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) as soon as
possible". Buduci da sporazum o statusu KFOR-a (SOFA),
koliko je meni poznato, nije zakljucen izmedju
Jugoslavije i KFOR-a kao sto je to bilo planirano,
pripadnici KFOR-a bi mogli biti odgovorni pred MKS (za
UNMIK to je nesporno). Verovatno ce SAD ovo pitanje
pokrenuti, pa ce od Jugoslavije tra?iti potpisivanje
sporazuma o neizrucenju Amerikanaca, bili oni
pripadnici KFOR-a ili UNMIK-a.
Pripadnici SFOR-a u Bosni i Hercegovini su tamo na
osnovu Dejtonskog sporazuma. Aneks 1A tog sporazuma
sadrzi SOFA-u kojim je na klasican nacin regulisan
status pripadnika stranih oru?anih snaga na teritoriji
dr?ave koja ih je primila. Taj status se svodi na to
da vojnici ostaju u vlasti dr?ave koja ih je poslala,
to jest izuzeti su od krivicne jurisdikcije
teritorijalne drzave. Ako clan 98 Statuta MKS ustvari
znaci da bilateralni sporazumi imaju prevagu u odnosu
na Statut - izgleda da je to njegov smisao mada nije
jasno - onda pripadnici SFOR-a u BiH ne spadaju pod
jurisdikciju MKS vec pod odredbe SOFA koji cini
sastavni deo Dejtonskog sporazuma.