[ad_1]
Kenneth Roth and Salil Shetty
Four years ago, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International – joining hundreds of others – urged the UN Security Council to send the atrocities committed in Syria ahead of the International Criminal Court (ICC). pursuit. Second, the conflict had already claimed 100,000 lives, mostly civilians. Today, the death toll is estimated at more than half a million, each day bringing new violations and unlawful killings.
Yet, the ICC has been unable to act. Russia's veto in the Security Council continues to block the path of justice for Syrian victims. Other members of the Council, including the United States, have also used or threatened to use their veto to block action against other atrocious crimes.
This sad situation is far from the summer of 1998 the support of non-governmental organizations reunited in Rome to create the ICC. Many of the major powers, including the United States, opposed the effort, but small and medium-sized governments seized what turned out to be an ephemeral moment. With the post-Cold War faith in multilateralism and a genocally motivated resolution in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, these governments have acted on long-standing but unrealized ambitions for a court. permanent world criminal. The Rome Statute, the court's founding document, was adopted on July 17, 1998, and the court was created four years later.
The ICC is a court of last resort for the most serious international crimes, including genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The court can act in all countries that have adhered to its treaty – 123 are now members of the ICC – but when states do not have, as in Syria, a so-called reference from the government or the Security Council United Nations. Notwithstanding these limitations and others, the creation of the court was an extraordinary achievement, firmly establishing a sign on the side of justice and the protection of human rights.
Today, the court has opened formal investigations in 10 countries. But with mbad atrocities committed in many parts of the globe, it is also needed elsewhere. The court reacts by moving away from its goal all over Africa. For example, the current prosecutor's request to open an investigation in Afghanistan would make it available to US nationals suspected of committing war crimes in that country. This is likely to provoke fierce opposition from the Trump administration. But this would demonstrate the ICC's potential to investigate "untouchable actors" and demonstrate that no one is above the law, throwing a misleading tale that the court was only targeting African leaders. Likewise, the ratification by Palestine and the recent request to the ICC prosecutor to investigate war crimes in that country point to a situation of almost total impunity on the part of the armed forces. Israelis and Palestinians for decades.
the court faces great challenges. Some of them were to be expected as it becomes more efficient and begins to investigate more powerful states or affect their interests. But this is not a sufficient explanation.
The court must improve its own performance. It has been undermined by lengthy procedures, insufficient investigations in its early cases and case selection strategies that do not always reflect what is most important to the victims. The prosecutor's office would be well served by articulating clear priorities within and among the countries it addresses – and then honoring them.
But the burden of strengthening the ICC also lies with its member states. Like other institutions protecting human rights, the court has fought against the lack of political will of its ostensible supporters of the government, especially when it is a matter of law. stop suspects. Inevitably, fulfilling one's obligations is more difficult in practice than in the abstract. Fifteen arrest warrants of the ICC are currently not enforced. In addition, the damaging haggling among ICC members on restricting the Court's budget has shifted a significant debate on how to build an effective institution.
The ICC also aroused predictable opposition from the leaders. In the face of possible ICC investigations, Burundi and the Philippines announced their withdrawal from the ICC, with Burundi officially leaving the court. As the investigation now open in Burundi shows, however, the withdrawal has little legal effect on the court's ability to prosecute past crimes. Kenya, at a time when cases were pending before the ICC against the country's president and vice president for allegedly attacking supporters after the disputed 2007 elections, has attempted to orchestrate a mbadive withdrawal from African countries. It has failed in the face of strong opposition from other African governments and African civil society.
To counter such attacks, Member States should take every opportunity to demonstrate their support for the court. Member States who have complained of perceived selectivity should support the court as it opens investigations outside of Africa. Such concrete badistance may include the pressure to execute pending arrest warrants and to ensure that the court has the necessary funds to do its work.
The issue is not just the success of a single institution. The "system" of the Rome Statute is a network of national courts of the member states of the ICC. The integrated responsibility in the ICC treaty serves as a catalyst for other justice efforts, such as a UN-supported investigative mechanism set up for Syria to circumvent the Russian veto in the United States. Security Council. This mechanism is not a court, but it can constitute cases ready to be tried for national and international investigations when suspects are arrested and international remedies are available.
The twentieth anniversary of the ICC treaty is approaching. to this historical institution and for other states to join the court. These are the dangerous moments that the founders of the Court have anticipated, warning in the treatise that the "delicate mosaic" can be broken at any moment. They believed they were building an institution to ensure that the most basic values - equality, dignity, justice would be protected by law. It is essential not to go back from this goal. We urge the global community that has supported the creation of the ICC to work with court officials to ensure that the ICC and its fight against impunity are strengthened by adversity and not diminished.
Kenneth Roth is the executive director of Human Rights Watch. Salil Shetty is the former Secretary General of Amnesty International. Follow them on Twitter: @KenRoth and @SalilShetty.
Source link
