The International Criminal Court: Time for an Update?

Though debate on the use of capital punishment still simmers among some groups in the UK it was formally abolished in 1965. Further, on 18 December 2008 the United Nations adopted resolution 63/168, which is a reaffirmation of its call for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty (62/149) passed in December the previous year. The resolution calls for states to freeze executions with a view to eventual abolition.

However, where do we send all those notorious international criminals who cause the death, mutilation or disruption of thousands of individuals? 

The International Criminal Court (ICC).

However, few have been vocal in asking whether this institution is entirely practical in its role?

Often public services are measured on the premise of quotas, numbers and other forms of comparative study. Yet, it is reductionist to assess the ICC in this format least because there are insufficient benchmarks to compare the ICC’s work. And even comparisons between its work and the ad-hoc tribunals like the International Criminal Tribunal of Yugoslavia (ICTY) or the International Criminal Tribunal of Rwanda (ICTR) is problematic due to their differing structures, features, budgets, and jurisdictions.          

Time for an update?

Inspiration for this article?

I try to begin the day by catching up on the news, first on the BBC, then Reuters, and finally Al Jazeera. I find that comparing different news stations helps to present a more holistic interpretation of the world news. Also, I find the blogs on Al Jazeera offers an in-depth study into a certain niche part of economics, politics or humanitarian issues.

A recent blog on Al Jazeera by Haru Mutasa on whether the trial of Bosco Ntaganda, a warlord from the Democratic Republic of Congo, will make a difference to those terrorised, forms the inspiration for this article.

She questions whether the ICC fulfils its purpose, of discouraging crimes of the gravest manner, as many in the Democratic Republic of Congo realise that ‘the reality is even if he (Bosco Ntaganda) is found guilty and is locked way for the rest of his life, chances are someone will carry on from where he left’

Issues with the ICC

Atrocities are still occurring so it can be infered that the threat of conviction by the ICC does not discourage the leaders of these crimes. This could be because at the time the leader is hopeful that he will prevail and therefore not have to face any charges.

This is combined with the lack of a police force under the ICC’s control making them unable to enforce arrest warrants.  The warrants of arrest for Sudan’s President Al Bashir issued in 2009 and 2010 are unlikely to be enforced by a President against himself.

Formed after the First World War the League of Nations also lacked suitable methods of enforcement.

Hypocrisy?

With Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo the warlords have been implicated by the present presidents but the national armies have escaped investigation. Is it fair that one side escapes punishment even though in both states they committed acts of savagery?

For instance, President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda has on various occasions ordered his men to ‘shoot and kill the civilians’.

Focus on Africa

For an International Criminal Court the focus on Africa is hardly 'international'. If you visit the website the top bar is dominated by African states. Other states such as Sri Lanka should be considered further by the ICC.

Africa again? We need a more holistic outlook!

Recommendations

The ICC should:

• Remain independent
• Indict all guilty of crimes within a given state
• Push for major states to ratify the Rome Statute
• Make all aware that only crimes committed after 2002 can be investigated to limit false expectations from the international community
• Involve the Security Council to enforce warrants
• Empower courts in the states to try those of lower note and concentrate on those who conducted the gravest crimes

The ICC is a worthwhile organisation but with these improvements we can hopefully help to reduce some of the most abhorrent crimes. For the people of the Democratic Republic of Congo they need to see changes on the ground, not just a warlord removed and replaced by another.