Why did Biden not reverse Trump’s sanctions against the International Criminal Court?

These notable shifts include re-accession to the Paris Agreement on Climate Change and ending the “Muslim ban.” But one of Trump’s most controversial sanctions decisions remains entrenched: the use of measures usually reserved for dictators and terrorists against ICC personnel. More than a month after Biden’s inauguration, a number of human rights organizations are demanding to know: What is the disruption? Sanctions risks were significantly reduced on Wednesday, when the International Criminal Court announced an investigation into war crimes in Israel and the Palestinian territories, prompting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to accuse the court of hypocrisy and anti-Semitism. He entered the position, hoping to give the new administration enough time to put itself in order. But in a statement to WorldView today this week, Attorney General Fatou Bensouda publicly stated that it was time to “reset” with the United States and urged the Biden administration to lift all sanctions and engage constructively with the court. Carried out against gross human rights violators[,] Bensouda, a Gambian lawyer who saw freezing bank accounts and temporarily blocking relatives’ assets after the Trump administration announced the sanctions last September, said in a statement in response: On a request for comment, a State Department spokesperson said: “The administration is conducting a comprehensive review of the sanctions in accordance with Executive Order 13928 while We outline our next steps, ”referring to the order signed by Trump on June 11 that subsequently triggered sanctions, but he did not provide any further details about the review, which was first announced in late January. Mark Kersten, founder of the International Law Group, The Wayamo Foundation, said the US government’s position was “ridiculous, because frankly, what needs to be revised?” Trump, the International Criminal Court has had a complicated relationship with Washington. The ICC’s position as a court of last resort when national courts are unable or unwilling to prosecute major crimes has made it a starting point for controversy. The United States has not ratified the Rome Statute that led to the establishment of the court in The Hague in 2002, nor has it accepted the court’s jurisdiction, and this distinction places the United States at odds with many of its allies. Most countries in Europe, North America, Latin America and much of Africa are among 123 supporters of the court. But while the George W. Bush and Obama administrations have kept their distance, neither has taken an aggressive stance like the Trump administration. In 2018, then National Security Adviser John Bolton, a longtime critic of the court, said that “for all intents and purposes, the ICC is already dead for us.” In 2019, the United States imposed a travel ban on ICC employees. The following year, after the court moved to open an investigation into potential war crimes in Afghanistan – the first investigation it had opened that could involve US forces – the Trump administration blamed the International Criminal Court, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo described it as a “apostate, just over three months later.” Trump signed the executive order authorizing new sanctions against those associated with the court.Sanctions imposed on Bensouda and another ICC prosecutor, Lesotho diplomat Vakisso Mushushoku, went into effect in September. Several human rights groups and foreign governments condemned these. The move, where Anis Callamard, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, tweeted that she was “speechless” after Trump signed the order. “Sanctions against the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court ??” after Trump lost In the presidential election last year, Biden was generally expected to rescind proceedings against the ICC. ”Adam Smith, partner at the Gibson law firm, Dunn & Crusher who has worked on, said: Sanctions in the US Treasury during the Obama administration: “A lot of people are following this.” He explained that removing the penalties imposed on Bensouda and other ICC employees could be as simple as canceling the executive order that placed them. Since Biden took office, his administration has adhered to international human rights standards. In February, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken announced that the United States would seek a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council next year, reversing another move in the Trump era against another divisive supranational body. It is unclear why the sanctions against ICC officials continue, and Axios reported last month that Netanyahu had asked Biden to keep the sanctions in place. After the court announced its investigation in Israel and the Palestinian territories, Netanyahu attacked the court again, describing it as “unmitigated anti-Semitism and the height of hypocrisy.” Blinken tweeted a few hours later that the United States “strongly opposes” the ICC investigation. Nevertheless, the problems between the ICC and the United States extend beyond Israel. Some critics, such as US national security attorney John Bellinger III, have argued that both sides need to stop Escalation, with the International Criminal Court backtracking on its position. Actions that could implicate US officials. But supporters of the court, including Kirsten, argue that Biden is following Obama’s laissez-faire approach to international justice – what he described as “selective engagement and polite hypocrisy.” Better than Trump, no doubt, but he also leaves much to be desired, ”Christine said. In her statement, Bensouda noted that the United States has in the past been a major part of the regional justice internet movement, back to the Nuremberg Trials, and said she hopes for an era New from cooperation with the United States, she said, “We are looking to the new American administration for constructive engagement and recognition of our legitimate duties under the Rome Statute,” and the court may have some reason to feel confident. Although it is still under sanctions, Bensouda She will soon be leaving her position at the International Criminal Court. British attorney Karim Khan will replace her as Attorney General at the ICC on June 16 – at a time when the Biden administration will have to review the executive order that imposed sanctions on Bensouda, according to Smith. Refusal to back down on Israel’s investigations or Afghanistan – In the words of Bensouda, “the coercive measures against the International Criminal Court have failed to achieve the stated policy objectives.” So why are they keeping them in place?