THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

The International Criminal Court

The International Criminal Court

International Criminal Court (ICC)

The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established on July 1 2002 as a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression, but it cannot exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression, as the Rome Statute of the international criminal court stipulates that the ICC cannot exercise its jurisdiction over the crime of aggression until such time as the states parties agree on a definition of the crime and set out the conditions under which it may be prosecuted. The Rome Statute also States that the ICC can only prosecute crimes committed on or after the founding date. The Rome Statute is the treaty that established the court.

Today there are 105 member states of the court, and 41 countries have signed but not ratified the Rome Statute. Countries which have signed but not ratified the statute are expected to refrain from “acts which would defeat the object and purpose” of the treaty. There are a few controversial countries which have not signed the statute including India, China and the United States. India and China have not yet joined the statute because of underlying issues such as it goes against the sovereignty of nation states, the war crimes jurisdiction covers internal as well as international conflicts affecting India due to its dispute with Pakistan over Kashmir. The United States has not signed the treaty citing that it denies fundamental American human rights, it is a political court without appeal, and there is an absence of jury trials, no right to a speedy trial, public trial or reasonable bail although these are all elements of the American military trials which have been used to try David Hicks and other Guantanamo Bay prisoners.

In times of cultural flux and massive societal change, when societies are coming to terms with entirely new political realities the question of how to deal with the sins of the past can fall by the wayside. Often, the successor regimes are in precarious political positions that make any serious attempt to prosecute the offenders of the previous regime for crimes against humanity or any other human rights violations that may have occurred on their watch. Vast injustices were often committed under the strict authoritarian regimes of places like Argentina, South Africa, and Serbia, yet the perpetrators of the atrocities find themselves free of possible prosecution due to the relative security of their positions. The coupling of power transfer with some form of amnesty for the offending regime is particularly effective technique for ensuring freedom from punishment. But the moral imperatives is toward justice, some form of punishment under which the offenders must be held accountable for their crimes. If the position of the successor government is too precarious for any form of prosecution, then there is also the loss of a deterrent factor. When human rights offenders are confident in their impunity from the rule of law, there will likely be ...