美國的國際刑事法庭政策與其對維和行動影響

American's Policy toward International Criminal Court and Its Influence on United Nations Peacekeeping Operation

自從小布希總統上任以後，美國的外交政策展現了強烈的單邊主義色彩。由於反對常設國際刑事法庭的成立，美國遂在聯合國安理會討論維持和平行動的議題時使用否決權，將維和議題作為其反對國際刑事法庭政策的討價還價工具，藉以迫使安理會通過給予美軍維和人員豁免權。然而，在醫生阿富汗與伊拉克虐囚事件後，美國無法獲得安理會再繼續通過給予類似的決議案，因而決定撤回部分美軍的維和人員，對聯合國維和行動的運作，造成重大衝擊。本文檢證當前美軍維和人員所參與的任務性質，幾乎都無遭受到國際刑事法庭起訴之虞，並以聯合國處理蘇丹達佛危機的過程為例，說明由於相關國家在關鈴國際刑事法庭議題的意見歧異，而影響達佛和平進程的推動。

American's foreign policy has shown a great trend of unilateralism since George W. Bush became president of the United States. Because the U.S. opposed the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and failed to gain immunity to protect its civilians, the U.S. used veto power several times toward the United Nations Peacekeeping Operation (UNPKO) issues at the UN Security Council (UNSC) to force UNSC to adopt resolutions granting immunity to those not party of ICC. It shows that the U.S. treated UNPKO as a bargaining tool to pursue anti-ICC policies. After the prisoner abuse scandals in Afghanistan and Iraq, UNSC failed to pass such a resolution. As a result, the U.S. declared to pull forces from two U.N. peacekeeping missions. By doing so, it caused great impacts to UNPKO. This article exams the U.S.'s participations in UNPKO, and finds that almost no U.S. soldier was at risk of being accused by the ICC. This article, at last, cites the Darfur case as an example to illustrate how these arguments interfered with the U.N.'s management of the Darfur crisis.