Thirteen years passed since the adoption of the Rome Statute, the founding treaty of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Now, the ICC is recognised as the first judicial body with authority in cases of genocide, crimes against humanity and war. But to achieve its goals, countries must be committed to the cause.
The lack of interest from many nations in providing evidence, surrendering individuals and holding trials; the negative reactions about the Court’s decisions and the budgetary needs are among the list of problems the ICC has dealt with and are the challenges it will have to face.
Not so global
Although it was signed on 17 July 1998, the Rome Statute turned into force on 1 July 2002. The Assembly of States Parties of the ICC accepted to create in 2010 the International Justice Day to stress its importance and the date of 17 July became a celebration of the global fight against impunity.
The first obstacle faced by the ICC is its membership. In 2002, the Rome Statute had 60 ratifications. Today this number is 116, but since its adoption seven nations voted against the treaty: United States, Israel, China, Iraq, Qatar, Libya and Yemen.
The Founding Director of the Centre for Women’s Global Leadership, Charlotte Bunch, told that the number of countries is important to create an established Court with jurisdiction in the violation of the most vulnerable populations. She does not think the USA could ratify the treaty in the next year because of the way the American Congress operates.
In November, 2003, the former American under-Secretary of State, John Bolton, appointed his total opposition regarding the possibility of an approval of the Rome Statute, claiming that the USA sovereignty could be undermined.
The Convenor of the Coalition for the ICC, William Pace, doesn’t believe in the possibility of an adherence of the USA or China in a short time. But he thinks the Obama administration has been “more constructive” and this could be the first step.
For one of the co-founders of the NGO International Justice Project (IJP), Wanda Akin, the fact that the USA is not a signatory of the treaty makes it even more important to celebrate the International Justice Day to use it as a reminder of “the monumental steps this ICC has taken”.
Akin considers the Court should be even more open to act outside of Africa, because the investigations nowadays are focused on the Central African Republic, Darfur, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Northern Uganda, Kenya and now Libya.
As the Nobel Laureate Desmond Tutu explained in 2009, Africa is preponderant in the ICC because Central Africa, Congo and Uganda requested ICC intervention by themselves.
Nevertheless, not everybody thinks the same. On July 5th the African Union announced their decision to not cooperate with the ICC in the arrest warrant for Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi, arguing that the Court is discriminatory because only goes after crimes perpetrated in Africa, the African Union Commissioner, Jean Ping, appointed.
The Chief Executive Officer of the Pan African Lawyers Union, Donald Deya, explained that in Africa there are reservations on the implications of certain Court’s decisions. As an example, he mentioned the situation in Libya, where the NATO, in his opinion, is trying to change the political regime, and not to protect civilians.
ICC and the protection of civilians
The protection of civilian population is a human right recognised in the United Nations Charter, the Security Council (SC) Resolutions 1970 and 1973 and the Rome Statute.
The Rome Statute in its article seven defines the crimes against humanity as “acts committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population”. Among these there are murder, extermination, enslavement, imprisonment, rape and torture.
The article seven of the Rome Statute was used to trial the Libyan government after the attacks perpetrated against the population. As a result of that, on 27 June, warrants of arrest were issued for Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi, his son and spokesman Saif Al-Islam Qaddafi, and Abdullah Al-Senussi, Director of Military Intelligence.
One of the co-founders of the IJP, Raymond Brown, remarked to IPS that all regional organizations reacted against Qaddafi’s position, except the African Union, and remembered that “international community would only intervene if there’s a widespread humanitarian harm”.
Libya is not a state party of the ICC and for that reason, the Court could only act after a referral made by the SC under the Resolution 1970 of the 26 February. In the Resolution, the SC highlighted that the Libyan authorities shall cooperate and provide assistance to the Court and the Prosecutor.
“It’s fair to say that the decision was only taken when there was a massive violation. It was appropriate in many ways to make the ICC referral and to intervene. It was a fast answer. What happened in Libya was not an ordinary situation", Brown told.
But in the protection of women in Libya and other countries, there have been several problems. As Bunch explained, even if the definition of rape as a war crime is very clear in the Rome Statute, many women in Africa think there is no gain in speaking out and the documentation in cases of massive rape is difficult to obtain.
A budget problem
Besides the ratification issue, there is another obstacle for the effective work of the Court.
The Coalition for the ICC has urged all member countries to maintain their financial support to the organization in order to not affect its activities, after some states parties, like France and the United Kingdom (UK), demanded “zero growth” budgets for 2012.
William Pace explained that, paradoxically, France and the UK are the nations that insisted in referring the Libya case to the ICC.
According to the organization, having a low budget could impact the new investigation in Libya and the delivery of justice in many other places. It could also affect the possibility of an eventual investigation against the Syrian regime, for allegedly have committed crimes against civilians.
Pace said that he thinks the situation in Syria is a “classic example” of those cases in which the SC applies some principles in one country and ignores them in another.
But Akin explains that, even if the case is similar to what happened in Libya, each situation should be considered differently. “Syria deserves to be considered in its own merit. The political situation is different in every country”, told.
No comments:
Post a Comment