Belgium makes justice less global

It is unclear whether the changes to Belgium's law, which have yet to be presented to parliament, will satisfy US demands. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said 10 days ago that Washington would suspend its contribution to a new NATO headquarters in Brussels unless Belgium rescinded the law, which was introduced in 1993.

His threat came against the background of a broad US effort to persuade countries around the world to sign immunity agreements under which they pledge never to send US citizens to The International Criminal Court in the Hague, which was set up last year to try the worst human rights abuses committed in the future. [Editor's note: The original version of this story incorrectly stated the name of The International Criminal Court.]

Forty-four nations, mostly poor countries such as Tajikistan, Palau, Honduras, and Gambia, have signed such deals so far, sometimes in the face of threats that they would lose US military assistance if they did not do so.

European Union nations have refused to sign such agreements, arguing that they are contrary to international law.

"It is the concept of universal competence that bothers Washington," rather than a fear its officials might be arrested in Belgium, says Michel Goffin, an aide to Belgian Justice Minister Marc Verwilghen.

The threats against Belgium "are part of a jihad the US is waging against independent international justice on every front," adds Mr. Brody. "It has much less to do with whether a US peacekeeper might be accused of genocide than with destroying the whole idea of an independent tribunal that can rule on US actions abroad."

Though more than 30 complaints have been filed with Belgian courts under the universal jurisdiction law against figures ranging from Yasser Arafat to Fidel Castro, only the Rwandan case has come to a trial. Four Rwandans, including two nuns, were found guilty of genocide two years ago.

Another case, against former Chadian dictator Hissen Habre, is well advanced and is likely to go forward even under the new law, since the plaintiffs are Belgian nationals, giving the case a clear link to Belgium.

According to the government's statement Sunday, however, the amended law does not consider the presence of the accused in Belgium to be a sufficient link to trigger an investigation.

That would violate Belgium's obligations under standard international law, however, and even opponents of the current legislation, who thought it went too far, worry that the government may have done too much to assuage US concerns about its officials visiting NATO.

"I would find it quite sad to have that kind of regression," says Professor d'Argent. "It would take us back to a situation of no universal jurisdiction at all."

"Previously Belgium did more than international law requires," adds Brody. "Now it looks as though they are settling for less than it demands."

Under the new Belgian rules, an appeals court judge will send a case for trial in the accused's country of origin if there is no clear link to Belgium, such as a Belgian victim, and so long as the courts in that country guarantee a fair trial.

That provision may come under attack during parliamentary debate, predicts D'Argent. "The problem is how you decide where fair justice is possible," he says. "It introduces difficult judicial assessments."

Page: 1 | 2