During
the class so far, we’ve talked extensively about the legitimacy and effectiveness of
international governance. After learning a bit more about the United Nations
and the security council, I decided to do my research. During this investigation,
I found what I believe is another example of an international institution that
continues to perpetuate inequality across the globe.
In
July of 1998, 120 States adopted the Rome Statute of the International Criminal
Court. Unfortunately, less than forty of these countries have ratified the
treaty within their state. In this decision to ratify the treaty, they have
accepted the “jurisdiction of a permanent international criminal court for the
prosecution of the perpetrators of the most serious crimes committed in their
territories or by their nationals after the entry into force (Cryer 2005)”. Due
to fear of lost sovereignty and that their criminal tendencies will be brought
to light, many countries are apprehensive to ratify the ICC. The ICC seems
useful in theory, but, in reality, it’s proved itself incapable of prosecuting
the powerful for many reasons: it raises concerns over loss of sovereignty,
lacks the ratification of global powerhouses, and places a microscope and
obvious target on weaker nations.
One
of the significant issues within the ICC is that the most powerful nations, and
often the ones involved in crimes, have not ratified the treaty. Some of the
most influential nations in the world have not ratified the ICC, including
China, Russia, and the United States, yet they are part of the International
Criminal Police Organization. “The International Criminal Police Organization
is an international organization of police forces from 176 countries designed
to coordinate International Law enforcement and furthers aid and cooperation
among the police forces of its national members to prevent and inhibit crime.
The ICPO vows political neutrality (International Criminal Police Organization
2008).” This decision was made because it is [allegedly] most effective in maintaining
justice and when offering protection and safety to the world, “rather
than target criminals”. While these claims seem
understandable, this deliberate decision has specific political undertones.
Shortly
after World War I, “Belgian troops were granted permission by the League of
Nations to occupy the Ruanda-Urundi territory. Upon arrival, they quickly
created a divide between the Tutsi and the Hutu tribes (Rothe, Mullins 2010)”,
creating racial and ethnic tensions that would bleed into the 21st century.
Early on in the Tutsi genocide, The United States and France were huge
supporters of the sitting government, selling warfare which only instigated the
fighting (Rothe, Mullins 2010).” Had the United States ratified the ICC treaty,
they may have been prosecuted for their involvement, which directly violates
the neutrality agreement posed by the ICPO. One of the other major criticisms
of the ICC is that there are obvious disparities in those who are indicted. “Since
2005, the International Criminal Court has indicted 39 people, all of which
were African (Sengupta 2016)”. While there are many defenses for this, none are
them are plausible, as there are plenty, if not more, non-African crimes
occurring. This claim is not meant as an
excuse for the many war crimes that do happen in Africa, however, in the case
of the Tutsi genocide, these African nations are being used as a scapegoat for
the more significant, more structural issue: exploitation and modern-day imperialism.
Tracing
the genocide back to its core, it is clear that the divide created by the
Belgium, in conjunction with the selling of weapons from significant nations
instead of intervention all have contributed a great deal to this issue. In the
critically acclaimed movie Hotel Rwanda, which depicts the story of a man who
risked everything to save his friends and family, it perfectly exemplifies the
lack of empathy and productive involvement by the League of Nations. The lack
of ratification by contributors in these crimes makes it virtually impossible
to hold the wrong-doers accountable. Instead, the ICC turns their attention, as
so many criminologists do, to the smaller crimes of the less powerful in an
attempt to achieve “justice.” In reality, there is no justice, and there will
never be until all parties are held accountable for their involvement in the
creation and involvement of transnational crimes. South Africa and many African
nations are recognizing this disparity and the ineffectiveness of the ICC to
prosecute the crimes of the powerful. They have claimed that “for years, the
court has been an institutional vessel to control and maintain the economic and
military interests of, depending on one’s point of view, the “global North” or
“the West.” The Gambia’s information minister denounced the ICC as an
“International Caucasian Court for the persecution and humiliation of people of
color, especially Africans; one lawmaker called it “a political tool used by
powers to remove whoever they want from power on the African continent ( Vos,
et al. 2016).” All in all, the International Criminal Court, in theory, could
be handy, but similar to the United Nations it has become a tool for protecting
and advancing the rights of a few countries while sweeping their war crimes of
the powerful under the rug without any consequences.
Works Cited
Broomhall,
Bruce. International Justice and the International Criminal Court: Between
Sovereignty
and the Rule of Law. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2003. Pp. viii, 215.
Cryer,
R. (2005). International Criminal Law Vs State Sovereignty: Another
Round?
European Journal of International Law, 16(5), 979-1000. doi:10.1093/ejil/chi156
Terry,
G. (Director). (2005, February 4). Hotel Rwanda: a true story [Video file].
International Criminal Police
Organization. (2008) West's Encyclopedia of
American Law,
edition 2. (2008). Retrieved from http://legaldictionary.thefreedictionary.com/International+Criminal+Police+Organization
Rothe, D., &
Mullins, C. (Eds.). (2010). Critical Issues in Crime and Society : State Crime
:
Current Perspectives.
Piscataway, US: Rutgers University Press. Retrieved from http://0-www.ebrary.com.library.stonehill.edu
Sengupta,
S. (2016, October 26). As 3 African Nations Vow to Exit,
International
Court Faces Its Own Trial. Retrieved from https://www. nytimes.com /2016/10/27/ world/
africa/africa-international-criminal-court.html?_r=0
Vos,
C. D., John L. Hirsch and Michael R. Snyder, Cummings, R., Hirsch,
J. L., Duerr, B., Sefa-Nyarko, C.,
& Ibe, S. (2016, November 3). The Politics of Departure: Africa and the International
Criminal Court. Retrieved from
https://theglobalobservatory.org/2016/11/international-criminal-court-south-africa-burundi-gambia/
Hi I agree with you that the ICC is extremely flawed and is meant to protect powerful countries. While all crimes against humanity are awful, the court focuses its investigations to the confines of Africa while every day there are heinous acts committed in more globalized regions. The court is just not carrying out its intended affect because nations such as China and the US have not submitted themselves to the court’s jurisdiction. If two of the most powerful nations in the world do not allow the court to hold some power over them, then how are other smaller nations supposed to accept the court? Also, the UN Security Council play a role in what cases the court gets involved in and it is interesting that many of the countries that have not submitted themselves to the court’s jurisdiction are also part of the council.
ReplyDeleteHi Taylor, Thanks for the response! i agree, I think the court simply is not doing the job it initially was put in place to do. What should be the solution? If it were up to me i'd say omit it, but the likeliness of that happening is obviously very slim.
DeleteHey Morgan this piece was really well written and I find it compelling. I agree with you that more first world nations have committed brutal acts of human rights violations that have gone unpunished. The ICC most likely only deals with African nations because it knows it can overpower them unlike places like the US. The ICC is severely flawed and tries to justify its worth by only dealing with weak countries.
ReplyDeleteHi Jonathan,
DeleteYes, the ICC is just another institution being used to promote inequality throughout the world. Terribly sad.
I believe that your argument is valid. A modern sample of this is in Syria. The president of Syria has used chemical weapons against its people and that is where I believe the ICC should cross the line. The fact that they have not been held accountable for these actions shows that the ICC is not fair. I believe that they are not held accountable because the major power Russia supports the Syrian Nation.
ReplyDeleteHi Theo,
DeleteThanks for the response! I agree with you and quite frankly, I don't think the ICC would be crossing any lines, I think they would simply be doing their job