We need a stronger response from the world’s watchdogs
The international structure presented in the present form has developed into various factors and thus has initiated new arrays of power structure and politics. Out of this a State’s sovereignty has been the utmost criteria still persistent and essential in international relations. Later in the 1990’s the end of the cold war in 1990-ushered in a new era of human rights and democracy. The conflicts present in the international system shaped the idea of a permanent International Criminal Court (ICC) to process war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. This aspect developed through a treaty Rome Statute in 1998-initiated the prospect of a permanent international criminal body separate from the United Nations, to try individuals. The court also thus differs, from the ICJ- (UN’s organ-International Court of Justice) and other ad-hoc judicial bodies in matters, that it tries individuals whereas the ICJ is responsible to give advisory opinions to the states.
The ICC in the realm of international politics has remained an institute that shows and has shown a weak response towards crucial issues of war crimes and crimes against humanity. This response and action primarily is instigated by its capacity to exercise jurisdiction. Presently, there are 124 states that are party to the Rome Statue out of which Burundi, Gambia and South Africa (quite recently) have announced their withdrawal from the treaty. The Rome Statute is a multilateral treaty and thus when signing and ratifying it a state consequentially surrenders itself to the court under its jurisdiction. Thus a state party to the Rome Statute comes under the jurisdiction of the ICC, whereas, the individual or the perpetrator also comes under its jurisdiction if he is the national of the State party or if the crime was committed in the State Party’s territory. Furthermore, the court can only undertake a case if the situation is referred to by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII.
Recently, with three withdrawals from Burundi, Gambia and South Africa the court was being considered as a serious setback regarding its establishment and its future role in the international politics. Being an International Relations student the court always had had difficulty in dealing with many of the pertinent issues present in international politics, whether it may be Afghanistan’s precarious situation or the atrocities committed in Palestine. The court was and thus is being criticised for launching investigations against the African nations consequently, of holding bias against the African nations.
According to a report published in the Foreign Policy magazine ‘International Criminal Court Poised to Open Investigation into War Crimes in Afghanistan-David Bosco’ has highlighted the pitfalls and the realpolitik association the investigation would bring upon. The court, afte what is termed as the African exodus has entered into a new role that would not only be different from the previous cases, but also would be seen if opening a new set of options in the realist dilemma of international politics.
To set such a criteria of international justice-for the first time the court would be considering a series of options; including the evidence required, and the inquires made before (that is in the US) of being lenient and demonstrably of little effect. The court thus, according to the report has already given the idea of launching an investigation, which highlights the leniency approached by the US into establishing it and handling the case of Afghan victims and detainees.
As far as the jurisdiction of the court is concerned the US is not a party to the Rome Statute which provides a basis for it being out of its jurisdiction. But the court explains that Afghanistan being a party to the Rome Statute since 2003 falls under its jurisdiction according to the principle of crimes being committed on its territory. The investigation if launched would also target certain other non-state violent and extremist actors (responsible for the crimes) into its frame of jurisdiction.
The court is headed by Fatoua Bensouda-the chief prosecutor, a Gambian lawyer and a woman. The investigation would be given full consideration by a three judge panel as only the Chief Prosecutor has proposed to launch the move.
The International Criminal Court since its establishment has been the subject of criticism. Due to the limited support by the powers in the international community and the prevailing self-interest, the court didn’t receive the international backing it essentially required. Its trail of cases against the African nations has deemed it weak and of little force and influence in the international community. Due to the importance given to state sovereignty and power politics, International Law has remained a weak domain to exercise control over the states. The report of an investigation of such nature would develop with time, as it would be first of its kind. International justice and International Law tend to be of only moral significance to many nations who are part of the widened chasm of the developed and the developing states. Moreover, International Law’s binding influence does not exist whilst considering the motives at stake. The report thus, amid the withdrawal of three African states and alleged African bias adds to the somewhat dismal role ICC has yet to play.
