Is An International Criminal Court Necessary Today?

A huge part of the twentieth century has already laid witness to impunities of gross human-right violations. Tyrants like Idi Amin, Pol Pot and Stalin were notorious for perpetrating huge felonies, such as acts of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Their punishment; invitations to peace conferences or being comfortably exiled to tropical climes. Although they killed a hefty number of people, they escaped trial. They never even saw the inside of a prison cell. Even though there were certain exceptions to this “pattern of impunity,” justice was not served adequately.

 A simple solution seemed obvious; courts which operated at the global level and made sure those villainous dictators were dealt with under international law. Hence, on July 1st, 2002, after being ratified by 60 states, an International Criminal Court operating under the Rome Statute came into being (UN). On the surface of things, this seemed like a positive step in the right direction. However, many critics say that the establishment of this sort of a court poses a great number of problems and technicalities. Conversely, most of these pessimists seem to take for granted the benefits of implementing an international criminal court. This essay exerts the importance of establishing an international criminal court despite certain technicalities, by emphasizing its benefits, namely ending impunity so that justice is ensured, resolving ethnic conflicts, its ability to fill in when national tribunals are inefficient or inexistent and its role in deterring future war criminals.

 The main question posed is whether an international criminal court is really necessary. According to Rudolph Rummel in his article “Power, Genocide and Mass Murder,” under Hitler’s regime, over five million European Jews were exterminated between 1942 and 1945. Stalin’s regime killed around the same number of people between 1932 and 1933, this time the victim being peasants in Ukraine. Stalin also targeted landlords. Pol Pot’s regime killed around two million civilians, causing mayhem and bloodshed in Cambodia, from 1975 and 1979. Idi Amin can be convicted of similar crimes, killing around 300,000 Ugandan civilians around 1971 to 1979. Stalin also targeted communists, killing around one million of them between 1936 and 1938.

 According to Rummel in the same article, the collective democide rates between 1900 to1987 are a staggering 169 million civilians. These violent regimes, forwarded by ruthless dictators, targeted and victimized people based on their ethnicity. Hence, the term “ethnic cleansing” is quite synonymous to genocide. Rummel defines democide as “The murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder”.

 Should these violent dictators and perpetrators not be brought to justice? Idi Amin fled to Libya and then finally settled in Saudi Arabia. The international community watched on as Stalin continued his oppressive and bloody regime. His sudden death in 1953 was the only thing scared civilians and relatives of those oppressed under his rule could take refuge in. Hitler’s untimely suicide was also the only thing that stopped his rampant killing of European Jews, and the only ounce of justice served to people who suffered under his rule. Even Pol Pot, who was responsible for the mass killings of thousands of Cambodians, was only given house arrest when caught. He died the following year.

 Apart from Pol Pot’s house arrest, civilians who directly felt the repercussions of each one of these dictators' violent agendas have clearly not been avenged. The justice has not been served. An international criminal court would ensure that these sorts of perpetrators are brought to justice. José Ayala Lasso, former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights said regarding the issue of past impunities that “A person stands a better chance of being tried and judged for killing one human being than for killing 100,000.”

 According to the United Nation’s website, one of the reasons for establishing a criminal court is to end impunity. Considering the “punishment” these past dictators received for killing countless numbers of civilians, it is difficult to say that justice has been served. However, by ensuring that impunity of the likes of Stalin and Idi Amin finally end, justice will also prevail as now these perpetrators are finally being tried under international law, and will receive the due-punishments they deserve. “Achieving justice for all” is also part of the United Nation’s mission statement, and a solid reason as to why an international criminal court is needed.

 Pessimistic people may argue that the Rome Statute, which sets out the provisions for jurisdiction and functioning of the court, has not been ratified or accepted by all states. Currently, only 105 states have recognized and approved this statute, and adhere to its laws and regulations (UN). Many states have yet to accept it, including the ones that currently practise inhumane acts of violence. Israel, USA and Russia are key examples of such states, as they not yet ratified to this body of law.

 Israel has been perpetrating inhumane acts on their Palestinian neighbours since their uprising in September 2000, such as the detainment and maltreatment of 8,500 Palestinians in the winter and spring of 2002. Russia had already once resorted to genocide as a means of subduing Chechnya’s resistance movement in 1944, and is currently involved in a conflict with them. According to the results of research carried out by a group of professors from John Hopkins University, as of 2006 the death toll in Iraq after the US invasion was 654,965, twice the amount killed under Idi Amin’s regime in Uganda.

Considering these countries carry out these atrocities even till today without much interference from the United Nations or any other international body, these pessimists may have a legitimate argument. However, they fail to see beyond the fact that many countries where genocide was once largely prevalent became, after ratifying to the Rome Statute, a relatively more peaceful place. Uganda is a key example of this sort of positive change. Also, the number of deaths from genocide today is subsequently lower than in the past century. This can be attributed to the fact that 105 countries have ratified to the Statute.

 Even though there are exceptions, it is clear that the presence of an International Court is making a difference at least in some parts of the world. What guarantee is there that countries like Latvia, Denmark and Canada, that have ratified to an international court, would not produce tyrants and dictators had they not fallen under the provisions of an international court (UN)? It is because of its existence that these countries are considered relatively more “peaceful” in comparison to states that have not signed on to the statute. Why it is that only the countries that have not signed on to the statute are engaged in democide and civil war, in contrast to the countries that have? Although there is no way to make these non-compliant countries accept the statute today, what guarantee is there that they won't accept it in the future?

 With the objective of “justice for all” intact, the United Nations, through the International Criminal Court, could also bring a stop to ethnic warfare taking place in regions. In 1994, hatred sparked between the minority tribe of the Tutsi’s and the majority Hutu tribesman of Rwanda when the president, a Hutu, was killed in a plane crash which was blamed on the Tutsi’s. Although there were always tensions between the two tribes, the animosity was sparked by this event, and lead to Africa’s biggest genocide in modern times. According to BBC, between April and July of the same year, 800,000 Tutsi’s and moderate Hutu’s were killed. Although the UN did intervene, not all the perpetrators were actually arrested. However, this intervention did cause an end to the war, and lead to the arrest of four of the ten perpetrators including Jean Baptiste Gatete, who was later tried in the Rwanda Tribunal.

 Although the Rwanda Tribunal is more of a national court than an international one, it sets an example of how the establishment of a court and the governance of law can help end war. Since the International Court deals on a global scale, it could help end wars and political democide, just like the Rwanda Tribunal Court helped end the Rwanda genocide. Although this would not help in countries where the Rome Statute has not been recognized, it at the very least acts as a preventative tool in the countries that have signed on to it.

 Critics of the court also believe that since the International Criminal Court works independently from the United Nation’s Security Council, as compared to the tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda that worked and operated directly under them. According to Allison Danner in her article, “enhancing the legitimacy and accountability of prosecutional discretion at the international criminal court” gives the court the power to carry out investigations and prosecute the “politically sensitive crimes.” This may seem like a threat that conflicts with the security and confidentiality of many states. But this also means that the members of the Security Council are not free from investigation if they have ratified the Rome Statute. Had they been under the control of the Security Council, they might not have had the freedom to carry out investigations in these countries. This would mean that if genocide was taking place in one of the permanent member states (which has ratified to the Rome Statute), they may be able to veto an investigation, resulting in a stalemate and a vicious cycle of inhumane treatments.

 The tribunals in Rwanda and the Former Yugoslavia only operate at the national level, and cannot be expected to deal with international crimes committed outside its borders. They may deal with the same thing the International Criminal Court deals with (war crimes, inhumane treatments, democide etc.), but clearly do not operate on the same level. The International Criminal Court ensures that countries where these sorts of tribunals are not set up but are vulnerable to inhumane acts, such as Cambodia, still receive the same level of justice and treatment. Although tribunals could be installed in such countries after gruesome acts have taken place, the risks of “tribunal fatigue” are high. Perpetrators may escape, witnesses may be displaced and crucial evidence may be tampered with.
A permanent court, such as the International Criminal Court, would operate in a much more efficient and consistent style, ensuring that justice is served to those deserving it, regardless of location and time. This even lessens the chances of impunity.

 While making sure impunity comes to an end, and these vicious tyrants are actually tried for their crimes, the International Criminal Court could also serve as a deterrent for future war criminals. An up and coming dictator with violent agendas would think twice before triggering a civil war and subjecting civilians to genocide if another tyrant before his time has already been punished. Recent perpetrators such as Jeane Baptiste Gatete, Idi Amin and Pol Pot probably concluded that their actions would go unpunished considering tyrants before them such as Stalin and Hitler were not prosecuted for their actions. Had an International Court been established then, and had they (Hitler and Stalin) been tried and punished, the outcome might have been different.

 Whatever the debate may be, the fact of the matter is that an International Criminal Court is already established and running. Critics may try to cut it down because of its shortcomings, but the facts stand clear and speak for itself. It may not be recognized by each and every state, but the countries that have ratified to it are prospering, and generally are not being subject to any grieve forms of violence. Furthermore, it cannot be guaranteed that these “non-compliant” states will not approve of it in the future.

 An end to impunity, ethnic conflicts, inefficiency from the national tribunals and future war criminals of the likes of Stalin and Hitler is enough of a reason for an International Criminal Court to exist. The world cannot afford genocide, and it should not have to. Establishing an International Court makes more sense than eliminating one, especially after what this century has witnessed. No one should have to suffer at the hands of another ruthless dictator or be ruled by fear. And those who already have deserve this most. Due to the fact that the benefits of sustaining an International Criminal Court overlap its shortcomings, it can be said that the world needs a court which deals at the international level.