Written by Michael Thervil
Photographer unknown
Even though the International Criminal Court (ICC) is very much so relatively young. Being that it was created in 1998, many people questioned its relevance while it was being created and even more so now considering the fact that since its inception it has only successfully tried and convicted only 11 people in the entire world during its time in operation. The biggest thing that political pundits, Criminologists, and Criminal Justice Experts are questioning is the conviction disparities that exist within the system of the ICC.
Bluntly put, experts are questioning why the vast number of people convicted by the International Criminal Court are almost exclusively from Africa and why none of the world powers such as the United States and counties that fall within the European Union, the United Kingdom, China, or Russia are even subjected to any the laws of the International Criminal Court. This question is especially troubling considering that one of the bullet points of the ICC is to “Try[ing] individuals for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and aggression.” For difficult for many people around the world especially those that were adversely affected by America’s “Forever Wars”, is to take the talking point of the ICC seriously when they failed to indict American President George Bush for not only his invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan under false pretenses, but the murder of Saddam Hussein.
Furthermore, it’s hard for people in West Asia and elsewhere to take the ICC seriously when the Obama Administration orchestrated the Arab Spring which resulted not only in the murder of Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi, but the ruining of an entire country that hasn’t recovered since. What’s more is that, according to the ICC’s website, the goal of the ICC is to: “fight to end impunity, and through international criminal justice, the court aims to hold those responsible accountable for their crimes and to help prevent these crimes from happening again.” Seems like The ICC caught a bad case of lockjaw and fell silent while millions of people died in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars while America utilized Depleted Uranium (DU), which global leaders have been trying get banned because of the health hazards it poses to not only humans, but to the environment in general.
What happens when countries like America, France, and the United Kingdom who have wreaked havoc on many nations with impunity are either unable or are simply not held to the legal standards to the highest court in the world? The answer is nothing. The ICC can legally do nothing, especially when countries that are considered global powerhouses have been proven to be immune to the decisions of the International Criminal Court. Adding insult to injury, the ICC doesn’t have any mechanism set in place such as an armed force to enforce the decrees from the ICC. Again, what use are the renderings and verdict of the ICC?
According to the ICC website it is “court of last resort” in which the only nations that honor its rulings are countries that are unable to directly compete with major world powers on the international scale. So maybe in a sense, the ICC just might benefit them. However, it goes back to the concerns that political pundits, Criminologist, and Criminal Justice Experts have; and that is: “how do address the conviction disparities that exist within the system of the ICC in which the countries that are immune to prosecution can be judiciously corrected?” Disappointingly, the answer is: “we can’t”.
So, to answer the question of whether or not the ICC is relevant – the answer is it isn’t.
Comments