Introduction
The Kampala amendments to the Roman statutes guiding the International Criminal Courts revised the definition of crime and aggression to elaborate the court’s jurisdiction. Before the amendment, some perpetrators of violence and crimes against humanity were protected by their sovereign states, hence failing to deliver justice to the victims. According to the amendment, the crime of aggression was defined as using military and other armed forces to jeopardize a different state’s territorial integrity, sovereignty, and political independence. Since the two nations enjoy sovereign powers, none may have jurisdiction to prosecute and charge the criminals. The ICC’s role is to arrest and prosecute in such cases.
Elements of a Crime of Aggression
Four critical aspects will determine whether or not the heinous act falls under the crime of aggression. The first indicator is when the perpetrator holds a leadership position in the country and uses influence to organize the crimes. Further, there should be evidence that the perpetrator planned, organized groups, and executed the crime of aggression against another country. Further, the military or political leader must have used their influence and the army power to commit the atrocity; it may be referred to as the atrocities committed. Finally, the act of aggression must violate the UN charter.
Ability to End Impunity
The main aim of the amendment was to empower the ICC to end impunity by prosecuting people who engaged in crimes of aggression regardless of their political positions. It is imperative to note that the amendment only applied to the nations that ratified it. The amendment and the definition of the jurisdiction were significant steps in eliminating impunity and could increase prosecutions in the long run.
The amendment is likely to end impunity because it expanded the mandate of the international court. As the ICC jurisdiction was raised, it could easily follow up and prosecute people engaged in crimes of aggression. Kampala amendment focuses on the robust investigation of the cases committed against humanity and gives the prosecution teams the ground to implicate a political or military leader. Impunity may be partially reduced since the people involved in the plotting will be held accountable.
The ratification of the Kampala amendment, therefore, makes it clear on the investigation of cases against humanity, such as genocide, and war crimes, such as sponsoring tribal clashes using military power. However, the amendment’s ability to end impunity depends on several factors which must be met. Failure to meet the factors jeopardizes the ICC’s ability to end impunity. Some factors required to end impunity include the state’s willingness to cooperate in the arrest, political goodwill in supporting the ICC’s work, and the court’s ability to conduct thorough investigations and bring results.
Hindrances
The Kampala amendment is only viable to nations that have ratified it due to the respect for sovereignty. Populist leaders who are prone to perform heinous acts may influence the country’s political parties to revoke the ratification to achieve success in the prosecution. The political hindrance is likely to affect the implementation of the ratification. Further, when the nations are not cooperative in arresting and surrendering the suspects, it may not be possible to deliver justice to the victims of crimes of aggression.
Further, the ability of the International Criminal Court to end impunity depends on its capacity to conduct independent investigations and draft charges against the people. Although the amendment is a stepping stone towards the end of impunity in the crime against aggression, a lot needs to be done to ensure that the courts are fully equipped to conduct the indecent investigation and prosecution of the criminals. The reforms that are key to eliminating impunity include the increase of diplomacy and outreach, capacity building, and formulation of the witness protection unit.
Proposed Reforms
Increased Diplomacy and Outreach
Although the 2010 Kampala amendment declared the jurisdiction and gave the ICC a more elaborate way to investigate and arrest perpetrators, the nations that ratified the amendment could only reach its influence. Therefore, the international criminal courts must expand their outreach by reaching out to countries to support the move and making them sign agreements to offer political support and work with the international court to deliver justice. Political goodwill must be factored into the delivery of justice because it ensures that all the nations under the UN charter support the course of justice through political charity. Universal ratification is critical because it increases the power of the courts to maintain peace in the world. When more nations ratify the amendment, the ICC will have more ability to protect different individuals in the long run.
Capacity Building and Enhancing Independence
International criminal courts have huge jurisdictions and may not be able to meet all the needs of the nations. Setting up successful cases includes conducting an independent investigation, setting up the evidence, and providing a fair trial. However, if the ICC lacks the capacity, the Kampala amendment may not eradicate impunity because a dysfunctional court cannot prosecute and offer justice to victims.
The reforms must, therefore, include capacity building in the member nations, allowing independent judicial systems to investigate and prosecute international cases domestically. Impunity will be eradicated if the ICC provides institutional support and empowers the local courts with training the judges, investigators, and prosecutors. The decentralization of the court systems will likely improve justice and eliminate impunity as the investigative agencies will be nearer to the country, helping to improve the investigation.
Witness Protection Unit
Court cases can only be taken through trial if there are enough evidence and witnesses. One of the essential features of the crimes of aggression is that prominent political and military leaders of the said nations commit them. When the witnesses are not protected, the delivery of justice will be jeopardized because the suspects may use their power and influence to manipulate or eliminate the witnesses, which reduces the case’s credibility. As the Kampala amendment defines the jurisdiction for the cases to be heard and determined, failure to protect the witness results in poor outcomes in the discourse. The main reforms should empower the ICC to have a robust framework for protecting witnesses and ensure successful cases against the leaders who commit heinous crimes.
Conclusion
Generally, the 2010 Kampala amendment is an essential milestone in ending impunity in crimes of aggression. Although the amendment makes it clear and lays the grounds for prosecution of political and military leaders involved in corruption charges by defining the boundaries, there is a challenge in its implementation. One of the main hindrances is the scope of performance, meaning that only countries that ratify it make it legally binding. Further, political interference by the leaders of the sovereign state may hinder the nation’s progress.
Consequently, the ICC lacks the power to bring the perpetrators to book. The main reforms that should be included in the amendment to make it viable for ending impunity are reaching out and obtaining universal ratification, protecting the witnesses, and improving the capacity of the domestic courts. The level of impunity will be reduced once the local courts are empowered to handle international assignments.
Reference List
Adem SH, Palestine and the International Criminal CourtĀ (TMC Asser Press 2020).
Akande D, āUnderstanding the Aggression Amendmentsā [2020] The International Criminal Court: Contemporary Challenges and Reform Proposals 201.
Babovic A, āThe Tokyo Tribunal, Justice, and International Orderā [2019] New Directions in East Asian History 3.
Cryer R, ’24. International Criminal Law [2018] International Law.
Hartig A, ‘The Restricted Jurisdictional Regime of the International Criminal Court [2023] Making Aggression a Crime Under Domestic Law 207.
Hutchinson R, āNuremberg Military Tribunalsā [2022] After Nuremberg ix.
Miller DE, Miller LT, and Miller AM Becoming Human Again: An Oral History of the Rwanda Genocide against the Tutsi(the University of California Press 2020).
Molkizadeh AH, ‘Amendments to the Elements of Crimes, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court [2023] Individual Criminal Liability for the International Crime of Aggression 263.