The International Criminal Court

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/