Abstract:
Eventhough there is law on immunity of the United Nations Peacekeeping Forces to fend them from the domestic jurisdiction of the states receiving the Peacekeeping Forces, in their action to keep peace the actual happenings which bring about cases in the court reveal that the international criminal acts, especially, those of serious nature for examples, genocide, crime against humanity, war crimes and crime of aggression are exceptions to the immunity claim. Such exceptions for the said crimes allow the International Criminal Court (ICC) to have jurisdiction over the members of the United Nations Peacekeeping Forces or peacekeepers. Under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, there is an important aim i.e. to protect and compensate the victims of the impact of the said serious international crimes which are crimes against human rights and international humanitarian law. This is done by bringing the violation to trial in the ICC when the parties to the Rome Statute are incapable to bring the violation to their domestic court or they are reluctant to do so. This is to ensure that the violator has no claim of immunity. In 2002 A.D. there was a resolution of Security Council to waive the peacekeeper coming from a state which is not a party to the Rome Statute from the jurisdiction of the ICC. The study reveals that the passing of the said resolution has curtailed the jurisdiction of the ICC to the effect of inconsistency with the UN Charter and the Rome Statute. Moreover, the resolution affects the efficient protection of human rights and tends to be in conflict with the principle of international humanitarian law. It can be said that the said resolution is in conflict with the aim of the Rome Statute. However, the future trend indicates that there shall be fewer claims for such immunity caused by the practice of the United States in concluding bi-party agreements on immunity to avoid sending nationals of the parties to the trial under the jurisdiction of the ICC