US use of ‘Hague Invasion Act’ to threaten ICC sparks backlash
This article was originally posted 6/12/24 but was deleted probably by mistake.
US officials have sparked controversy by invoking the so-called “Hague Invasion Act” in response to the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and his former Defence Minister, Yoav Gallant, Anadolu Agency reports.
Matthew Hoh, Associate Director of the Eisenhower Media Network – a group of former US military, intelligence and national security officials that provides analysis of Washington’s foreign policy — criticised the threats for Anadolu, highlighting their implications for international law.
Hoh reflected on the origins of the act and its renewed relevance following the decision by the ICC.
The 2002 law, officially titled the “American Service-Members’ Protection Act,” was enacted during President George W. Bush’s administration to shield the US and its allied nationals from ICC prosecution.
Known informally as the “Hague Invasion Act”, it authorises the US to use all means, including force, to protect its nationals from ICC jurisdiction.
Hoh explained that the legislation was originally designed to block ICC investigations into potential US war crimes.
OPINION: The US President is authorised to invade The Hague if any Israeli is held by the ICC
The ICC’s past investigations into US personnel in Afghanistan drew similar threats, with the US imposing sanctions on the Court and its officials.
He said the law resurfaced in the American Congress after the ICC issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant.
‘Decision-makers within the US are doing to hasten the end of the US Empire’
Hoh criticised the US response as an overreach to protect Israel.
“The US has, within its own law, the authorisation to use military force against institutions like the ICC,” he said. “Certainly this action […] contravenes the US’ own stated desires, its own slogans [..]. that it believes in such things as international law.”
Hoh also noted the broader implications of the US’ confrontational approach toward the ICC.
“By doing this, by reacting this way to the International Criminal Court and by requiring its allies to do so, it is giving more credence, more validity, more reason for alternative institutions, alternative mechanisms, alternative alliances to grow and expand against the American Empire,” he said. “Decision-makers within the US are doing to hasten the end of the US Empire.”
Double standards in the US approach to the ICC have drawn further scrutiny. Hoh pointed out the stark contrast in US reactions to ICC warrants against Russian President, Vladimir Putin, and Netanyahu.
“When the ICC issued arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia, the Americans across the board, political class, media class, military class, so on and so forth, were excited about that development and they were very pleased to see the arrest warrants,” he said.
When it comes to Israel, the response is different, he noted.
Hoh said the West sees international law as a tool not to be used against those in power. He argued it is there to be used against those in the “developing world, those who do not have power, those who are not within the upper levels in the imperial world order.”
He added that international law is meant to keep people other than “white people” in check, to keep nations out of power and under the subjugation of the existing world order.
READ: US Senator threatens military action against ICC after Netanyahu arrest warrant
This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
