Mobile & VoIP

The “non–Surrender Treaty” Between Ghana And United States Of America: In Violation Of International Norms And Practice

The “non–Surrender Treaty” Between Ghana And United States Of America: In Violation Of International Norms And Practice

Free Online Articles Directory

Why Submit Articles?
Top Authors
Top Articles
FAQ
ABAnswers

Publish Article

0 && $.browser.msie ) {
var ie_version = parseInt($.browser.version);
if(ie_version Login

Login via

Register
Hello
My Home
Sign Out

Email

Password


Remember me?
Lost Password?

Home Page > Law > National, State, Local > The “non–Surrender Treaty” Between Ghana And United States Of America: In Violation Of International Norms And Practice

The “non–Surrender Treaty” Between Ghana And United States Of America: In Violation Of International Norms And Practice

Posted: Mar 08, 2010 |Comments: 0
| Views: 233 |

]]>

I  Introduction                                          
It is always in times of greatest strain that legal boundaries are most important.  The US governtment has been able to conclude with a number of countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East, a ‘Non–Surrender Treaty’ and continues vigorously to negotiate with numerous countries all over the globe.  The target of this agreement is poor and weak countries all over the world.  And the object of this agreement is the establishment of a legal relationship between the developing states and the United States of America under which US military and civilian personnel suspected of committing international crime on the sovereign territory of these states (including their quasi-territories such as ships and aircrafts) will not be turned over to the International Criminal Court (ICC) or in other words, will enjoy immunity from the jurisdiction of the ICC, while the developing states will benefit in terms of economic and military aid. An international agreement of this nature undermines not only the sovereignty, independence and the principles equality of states but importantly violates some of the principles of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to which USA and some of the signatory states are parties.
Ghana became one of the independent states compelled by circumstances to sign the ‘Non– Surrender Treaty’ with the US not in a normative void, but against a backdrop of established international law. In Ghana, the document received parliamentary approval through ratification on 30th October 2003 with a vote of 101 in favour, 53 against and no abstention (See, Daily Graphic of 31st October, 2003).  The parliamentary approval was manifested by clear partisan approach but that is not the focus of the present article.

The present article seeks to set out the fundamental principles and general rules governing the conclusion of treaties of this nature; the extent to which the ‘Non– Surrender Treaty’ between the US and other states (some of which had already accepted the obligations of the Rome Statute) violates the principles and rules of international law and order.  The article does not address the substantive issues in the ‘Non-Surrender Treaty’ itself in any detailed form due to the limited scope, nor advocate any position beyond the application of international law as set out here.  Apart from looking at the situation as in Ghana, the aim is to provide a resource for those grappling with many legal questions raised by the situation so far as the Rome Statue and the ‘Non–Surrender Treaty’ are concerned. The article attempts answering general questions which include the following. What is the fate of a treaty that violates international legal principles embodied in the United Nations Charter? Whether and in what circumstances is the use of coercion permissible in treaties? Whether the ‘Non–Surrender Treaty’, a bilateral treaty, violates the Rome Statute (a multilateral treaty) or contradict with any existing peremptory norm of international law, and what can be done in this situation?  

II   In violation of the Principles of the UN
The principle of sovereign equality of states include respect for the sovereignty of all states irrespective of economic or military power. The principle of sovereign equality of states is embodied in Article 2(1) of the United Nations Charter, which states that “the organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its members” Interpretation of that principle is given in many authoritative international documents and especially in the Declaration on Principles of International Law of 1970 which is binding on the organization and all its members.  Sovereignty means a state’s complete authority over its own territory and independence in international relations.  Accordingly, that principle obliges a state to respect the full authority of any other state over its own territory and its independence from other states constituting sovereign entities that are juridically equal.  Unfortunately, the same international law contains principles and norms that sanctioned its violation. For example, states under the cover of the principle of self-defence wage war against one another and they always try to justify their course of action on the basis of such principles.  
In modern international law the substance of the principle of sovereign equality of states is wider.  It includes the following proposition:
Each state has the duty to respect its territorial integrity and political independence of other states;
All states are juridically equal.  They have equal rights and obligations as members of the international community irrespective of differences in their economic, social and political system.
States may create norms of international law through agreements on the basis of equal rights, no one state or group of states can impose on another or other states norms of international law that it creates itself.
The last of the above three substances is of primary concern here with regard to the ‘Non- Surrender Treaty’.
Of course, the legal equality of subjects of international law does not imply their acutual equality.  There is a certain contradiction between the principle of sovereign equality of states and their actual equality. We can only talk of equity and not equality. There are states with small population (e.g. Togo with 6.6 million) and others whose population are a thousand times larger (e.g. China with  ) entering into agreement on equality basis..  In the same way we are witnessing a situation in which a rich, influential and powerful state like the USA is entering into a bilateral agreement with poor and weaker states.  
The legal equality and independence of sovereign states confers upon each state the right of conduct its internal affairs free from the interference of other states, subject only to the rules of international law. This is known as the doctrine of non-intervention and as the International Court explicitly observed in Nicaragua v United States (Merits) (1986) ICJ Reports, p. 14, at p. 106.
‘The existence in the opnio juris of states of the practice of non-intervention of backed by established practice. It has moreover been presented as a corollary of the principle of the sovereign equality of states.’

States are obliged to refrain from action which may be construed as ‘intervention’ in the sovereign affairs of other states. The classical definition of the term ‘intervention’ was elaborated in the following passage:
‘Intervention is dictatorial interference by a state in the affairs of another state for the purpose of maintaining or altering the actual condition of things… Intervention can take place in the external as well as the internal affairs of a state …But it must be emphasized that intervention proper is always dictatorial interference, not interference pure and simple’. Oppenheim, L. International Law (Eighth edition, 1955), Vol. I, para, 134.

Intervention has become synonymous with the use of force. This was clearly recognized by the international Court in the Corfu Channel Case (Merits) (1949) ICJ Reports, p. 4. In reply to the contentions of the United Kingdom that mines weeping operations in Albanian waters had been carried out for the purposes of obtaining evidence for subsequent international litigation, the Court made the statement that:

]]>

‘The Court can only regard the alleged right of intervention as the manifestation of a policy of force, such as has, I the past, given rise to most serious abuses and such as cannot, whatever be the present defects in international organization, find a place in international law…’

Attempts have been made to ascertain the content of the principle of non-intervention. General Assembly Resolution 2131 (XX) of

Pages: 1 2 3 4