|
|
|
|
  |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
Liaison Newsletter > LIAISON Vol. 2, No. 3, May 1998 - Articles
Looking for Justice: An International Criminal Court
It is commonly said that there can be no peace without justice. The situations in Cambodia and Burundi are good examples of this, and demonstrate why the current negotiations to create an International Criminal Court are both important and timely. 
Serious discussion about establishing a court to try individuals who have violated international law began 50 years ago. In 1948, the UN asked the International Law Commission to codify the principles used in the Nuremberg Trials and to prepare a draft statute to create an International Criminal Court. A proposal for such a court was put forward in 1950, but the Cold War blocked its progress. With the end of the Cold War, the idea of creating an ICC re-surfaced, and gained momentum following the atrocities committed in places like the former-Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Iraq. Unlike the International Court of Justice in the Hague, which hears cases involving nation states, a permanent International Criminal Court would hold individuals, including national political and military leaders, accountable for violations of international humanitarian law. The ICC would deal with the ‘core’ crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity (for example, murder, enslavement and torture) and war crimes (sexual and gender violence). It would function only where national jurisdiction failed due to a states inability or unwillingness to prosecute effectively. The Canadian Government is a strong supporter of an independent and effective International Criminal Court. At an address in April to the Preparatory Committee on the establishment of an International Criminal Court, Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister, Lloyd Axworthy, outlined the need to create "a permanent body that would provide the international community with a means to address more broadly the problem of impunity for those who commit war crimes and crimes against humanity." Mr. Axworthy drew on Canada’s experience in the campaign to ban landmines to illustrate how a similar relationship between government and civil society could help push the idea of an International Criminal Court forward. Indeed, much of the progress on the ICC campaign can be attributed to the resolve of a coalition of non-governmental organizations, and the commitment of "like-minded" states. The latter are a group of small and medium-sized states, who are the strongest advocates of an independent criminal court. Supporters of an ICC believe that the existence of a permanent body, whose mandate is to try individuals accused of violating international law, will deter people from ordering or taking actions which would breech such laws. The Court, it is hoped, will bring a degree of justice to the victims of such atrocities, breaking the spiral of violence by giving people a just alternative to carrying out their own violent retributions. Unlike traditional approaches such as sanctions, which often hurt the most vulnerable and innocent members of society, an ICC will also be more effective at targeting individual perpetrators. Support for such a court, however, is not unanimous. A number of problems remain to be resolved at the June 15-17 meeting of the UN Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, to be held in Rome. One of the most serious concerns is it that of the jurisdiction of the court over crimes against humanity and war crimes. Currently, the basic assumption is that the court can not try such crimes unless it has the cooperation of the state(s) involved in a specific case. Another problem is that, while many states agree that the UN Security Council should be able to refer certain situations to the court’s jurisdiction, the US and a number of other states feel that the Court should not be able to begin proceedings on a case that is still before the Security Council. This would both limit the independence and impartiality of the court. The debate will no doubt be contentious. And it is this fact that makes Canada’s role as Chair of the ‘like-minded group’ all the more important. It will be Canada’s role to make sure that, as Prime Minister Chrétien stated last October, "(e)verybody realizes that we need (an International Criminal Court)... With the world of today, the system of the past cannot work." Supporters of the court hope the negotiations in Rome will result in an effective agent for justice and the rule of law. Rory O’Connor is UNA-Canada’s Research and Information Officer.
|
