http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4528&Itemid=202
The International Criminal Court in the Global Criminal Justice
System
Written by Jessy Jay
Wednesday, 23 May 2012
Where the world's top criminals meet justice
Will it be needed in Asia?
The International Criminal Court was established in 2002 to act as
a permanent tribunal for heinous international offenses including crimes
against humanity, genocide, war crimes, and more recently, crimes of aggression.
Unlike the International Court of Justice—the judicial branch of
the United Nations—the scope of cases, jurisdiction and mandate of the ICC are
extremely narrow. Given its limited function, it is not surprising that the ICC
has only opened seven cases and indicted 28 people. The utility of such a court
has been the subject of much debate and continues to spark controversy in
political, military and academic circles.
The court has never taken on an Asian case. But there could come a
time when it might. Human rights organizations have condemned government
actions in the past, and at least two Indonesian generals, Wiranto and Prabowo
Subianto, have been accused of orchestrating mass murders in Timor Leste and
Indonesia. The Rajapakse government in Sri Lanka stands accused today of the
disappearance of thousands of Tamils in the country’s decades-long civil war.
Throughout the 20th Century, the international community
contemplated the establishment of a permanent tribunal as a means to bring
justice for serious international crimes and to hold accountable the
perpetrators of those crimes. Particularly after WWII, and then again following
the genocides in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the outrage against these
criminals drove many countries to take action. Ad hoc tribunals were
established to hold accountable those responsible for war crimes and massive
ethnic killings. Although these temporary courts were deemed successful in
their limited scope, further atrocities demanded consideration of a permanent
judicial body that could potentially deter future crimes. The following are
brief descriptions of the ICC’s current pending cases:
The atrocities in Uganda, led by Joseph Kony and his Lord’s
Resistance Army, prompted an investigation by the ICC and the arrest of several
Ugandan officials. On July 8, 2005, the ICC indicted Kony, Raska Lukwiya, Okot
Odhiambo, Dominic Ongwen, and Vincent Otti on 21 counts of war crimes and 12
counts of crimes against humanity. In this situation, the ICC has been unable
to proceed because two of the accused are dead and the other three are listed
as fugitives.
The next case referred to the ICC involved the situation in the
Democratic Republic of Congo. The investigation includes war crimes, crimes
against humanity and genocide. Of the five people indicted by the court, Thomas
Lubanga Dyilo, Germain Katanga, Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Bosco Ntaganda and
Callixte Mbarushimana, only the first three are currently on trial in the Hague.
After conflict escalated in the Darfur region of Sudan, the
Security Council of the UN referred the situation to the ICC. After further
investigation, the ICC indicted seven individuals for war crimes, genocide and
crimes against humanity. Although Ahmed Haroun, Ali Kushayb, Omar al-Bashir,
Bahar Abu Garda, Abdel Rahim Mohammed Hussein, Abdallah Banda, and Saleh Jerbo
have all received indictments, only the latter two have voluntarily appeared in
court.
Jean-Pierre Bemba, former vice-president of the DRC, was indicted
by the ICC for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in the Central
African Republic between 2002 and 2003. An ongoing investigation by the ICC
into the atrocities committed by President Ange-Félix Patassé of the Central
African Republic continues.
The 2007-2008 post-election violence in Kenya sparked investigation
by the ICC, after Kenyan judge, Philip Waki, determined that the government was
unwilling to seek legal action for horrific crimes following the presidential
elections. The ICC indicted six individuals, known as the “Ocampo Six” after
the ICC Prosecutor, for crimes against humanity. Proceedings are ongoing.
The ICC recently indicted Muammar Gaddafi, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi,
and Abdulla Senussi of Libia for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The
case, referred to by the UN Security Council, is ongoing.
The president of Cote d’Ivoire, Laurent Koudou Gbagbo, became the
first head of state to be taken into ICC custody in late 2011. The pre-trial
phase of his case began and hearings are set for June 18, 2012.
Regardless of how a situation arrives at the ICC, the international
community seems to have found a method for addressing seriously egregious
crimes occurring on an international scale. In order for the ICC to be even
more effective, non-governmental organizations such as the Coalition for the
International Criminal Court (CICC) are working toward worldwide ratification
of the ICC.
The Rome Statute established the International Criminal Court in
circumstances where states are unable or unwilling to resolve serious
international crimes. The ICC can have jurisdiction over a case in one of three
ways: if the UN Security Council refers the situation to the ICC; if the
accused is a citizen of a signatory state; or if the crime was committed in the
territory of a signatory state. Universal jurisdiction was sought for the ICC,
but the United States strongly opposed granting such broad powers and was not a
signatory to the Rome Statute.
Several concerns arose regarding diminished state sovereignty,
interference in foreign policy and potential prosecution of high-level
political and military officials. Although such concerns so far appear
unfounded, it remains to be seen how effective the ICC can be without a
long-term commitment from the United States. Nevertheless, the court continues
to press forward in its current endeavors to bring those accused to justice.
It is difficult to determine whether this relatively new
institution can meet its objectives. Some opponents of the ICC suggest that
because the court lacks a police component, it also lacks the authority to
enforce its decisions. This deficiency has been most evident in the ICC
prosecutor’s inability to require states to extradite fugitives. In reality, an
ICC indictment is only as meaningful as the member state’s willingness to
enforce it. Additionally, though the Rome Statute established a detention
facility in The Hague for housing accused individuals awaiting trial, the
facility was not intended for convicted prisoners. Much of the ICC’s
credibility still depends on the legal precedents it will establish in the
conviction phase of its current trials.
For example, in a landmark decision on March 14, 2012, the ICC
found the former DRC commander Thomas Lubanga Dyilo guilty of war crimes. As
the first conviction for the court, human rights advocates celebrated the
decision as a historical step in promoting justice for children and other
victims of such atrocities. Since the sentencing phase still remains, it may be
too early to tell whether this conviction will translate into actual
punishment. It will be up to the ICC and the DRC to agree on a place to carry
out the sentence, which may include life in prison. As with any justice system,
there will be imperfections that may require policy adjustments. However, if
the ICC has increased international cooperation in minimizing crime, most
contend that the court’s efforts are worthwhile.
Written by Jessy Jay
Wednesday, 23 May 2012
Where the world's top criminals meet justice
Will it be needed in Asia?
The International Criminal Court was established in 2002 to act as a
permanent tribunal for heinous international offenses including crimes against
humanity, genocide, war crimes, and more recently, crimes of aggression.
Unlike the International Court of Justice—the judicial branch of the
United Nations—the scope of cases, jurisdiction and mandate of the ICC are
extremely narrow. Given its limited function, it is not surprising that the ICC
has only opened seven cases and indicted 28 people. The utility of such a court
has been the subject of much debate and continues to spark controversy in
political, military and academic circles.
The court has never taken on an Asian case. But there could come a time
when it might. Human rights organizations have condemned government actions in
the past, and at least two Indonesian generals, Wiranto and Prabowo Subianto,
have been accused of orchestrating mass murders in Timor Leste and Indonesia.
The Rajapakse government in Sri Lanka stands accused today of the disappearance
of thousands of Tamils in the country’s decades-long civil war.
Throughout the 20th Century, the international community contemplated the
establishment of a permanent tribunal as a means to bring justice for serious
international crimes and to hold accountable the perpetrators of those crimes.
Particularly after WWII, and then again following the genocides in the former
Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the outrage against these criminals drove many countries
to take action. Ad hoc tribunals were established to hold accountable those
responsible for war crimes and massive ethnic killings. Although these
temporary courts were deemed successful in their limited scope, further
atrocities demanded consideration of a permanent judicial body that could
potentially deter future crimes. The following are brief descriptions of the
ICC’s current pending cases:
The atrocities in Uganda, led by Joseph Kony and his Lord’s Resistance
Army, prompted an investigation by the ICC and the arrest of several Ugandan
officials. On July 8, 2005, the ICC indicted Kony, Raska Lukwiya, Okot
Odhiambo, Dominic Ongwen, and Vincent Otti on 21 counts of war crimes and 12
counts of crimes against humanity. In this situation, the ICC has been unable
to proceed because two of the accused are dead and the other three are listed
as fugitives.
The next case referred to the ICC involved the situation in the
Democratic Republic of Congo. The investigation includes war crimes, crimes
against humanity and genocide. Of the five people indicted by the court, Thomas
Lubanga Dyilo, Germain Katanga, Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Bosco Ntaganda and
Callixte Mbarushimana, only the first three are currently on trial in the Hague.
After conflict escalated in the Darfur region of Sudan, the Security
Council of the UN referred the situation to the ICC. After further
investigation, the ICC indicted seven individuals for war crimes, genocide and
crimes against humanity. Although Ahmed Haroun, Ali Kushayb, Omar al-Bashir,
Bahar Abu Garda, Abdel Rahim Mohammed Hussein, Abdallah Banda, and Saleh Jerbo
have all received indictments, only the latter two have voluntarily appeared in
court.
Jean-Pierre Bemba, former vice-president of the DRC, was indicted by the
ICC for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in the Central African
Republic between 2002 and 2003. An ongoing investigation by the ICC into the
atrocities committed by President Ange-Félix Patassé of the Central African
Republic continues.
The 2007-2008 post-election violence in Kenya sparked investigation by
the ICC, after Kenyan judge, Philip Waki, determined that the government was
unwilling to seek legal action for horrific crimes following the presidential
elections. The ICC indicted six individuals, known as the “Ocampo Six” after
the ICC Prosecutor, for crimes against humanity. Proceedings are ongoing.
The ICC recently indicted Muammar Gaddafi, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, and
Abdulla Senussi of Libia for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The case,
referred to by the UN Security Council, is ongoing.
The president of Cote d’Ivoire, Laurent Koudou Gbagbo, became the first
head of state to be taken into ICC custody in late 2011. The pre-trial phase of
his case began and hearings are set for June 18, 2012.
Regardless of how a situation arrives at the ICC, the international
community seems to have found a method for addressing seriously egregious
crimes occurring on an international scale. In order for the ICC to be even
more effective, non-governmental organizations such as the Coalition for the
International Criminal Court (CICC) are working toward worldwide ratification
of the ICC.
The Rome Statute established the International Criminal Court in
circumstances where states are unable or unwilling to resolve serious
international crimes. The ICC can have jurisdiction over a case in one of three
ways: if the UN Security Council refers the situation to the ICC; if the
accused is a citizen of a signatory state; or if the crime was committed in the
territory of a signatory state. Universal jurisdiction was sought for the ICC,
but the United States strongly opposed granting such broad powers and was not a
signatory to the Rome Statute.
Several concerns arose regarding diminished state sovereignty,
interference in foreign policy and potential prosecution of high-level
political and military officials. Although such concerns so far appear
unfounded, it remains to be seen how effective the ICC can be without a
long-term commitment from the United States. Nevertheless, the court continues
to press forward in its current endeavors to bring those accused to justice.
It is difficult to determine whether this relatively new institution can
meet its objectives. Some opponents of the ICC suggest that because the court
lacks a police component, it also lacks the authority to enforce its decisions.
This deficiency has been most evident in the ICC prosecutor’s inability to
require states to extradite fugitives. In reality, an ICC indictment is only as
meaningful as the member state’s willingness to enforce it. Additionally,
though the Rome Statute established a detention facility in The Hague for
housing accused individuals awaiting trial, the facility was not intended for
convicted prisoners. Much of the ICC’s credibility still depends on the legal
precedents it will establish in the conviction phase of its current trials.
For example, in a landmark decision on March 14, 2012, the ICC found the
former DRC commander Thomas Lubanga Dyilo guilty of war crimes. As the first
conviction for the court, human rights advocates celebrated the decision as a
historical step in promoting justice for children and other victims of such
atrocities. Since the sentencing phase still remains, it may be too early to
tell whether this conviction will translate into actual punishment. It will be
up to the ICC and the DRC to agree on a place to carry out the sentence, which
may include life in prison. As with any justice system, there will be
imperfections that may require policy adjustments. However, if the ICC has
increased international cooperation in minimizing crime, most contend that the
court’s efforts are worthwhile.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
Post message: [email protected]
Subscribe : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : [email protected]
List owner : [email protected]
Homepage : http://proletar.8m.com/Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
