Introduction
The end of the colonial era brought freedom and self-determination to nations. Consequently, the countries enjoyed sovereignty and non-interference from the international domain. As the nations enjoyed their self-rule, some heads of state and other officials committed atrocities with impunity as the judicial systems lacked independence. The atrocities committed against humanity include the Nazi era under Adolf Hitler and the Rwandan genocide, where the leaders organized massacres leading to massive loss of life as the international community watched. When international criminal law was founded in 1948 through a convention by the United Nations, the main aim was to offer justice to the victims and punish all offenders regardless of their social and political position.
Principles of International Law
International criminal law may only be instrumental in issuing justice if the founding principles and ethos are guaranteed. The key focus for international criminal law was to promote accountability and ensure that human rights are respected worldwide. All heads of state are to safeguard the rights of their citizens and account for any atrocities. Presidents who presided over crimes were supposed to be arrested and prosecuted.
Deterrence is an essential principle of international criminal law, which states that all the people who engage in crimes must be prosecuted. Victims to the victors were supposed to be guaranteed in all the rulings and prosecution brought before the courts. Developing international norms was an important aspect that could facilitate dispensing justice to the victims.
Failure to Meet its Mandate
The principles of criminal law can only be achieved when the courts operate without bias and use the evidence to prosecute. However, a sample of the cases solved by the international criminal courts and tribunals proved that international law is one-sided and offers justice to the victors. However, since the victors are people with power and influence, the courts have failed to offer the required justice in the long run. Examples of cases that showed that international criminal law was biased include the formed tribunals that failed to deliver justice to the victims, such as the Nuremberg trials, the Rwandan genocide case, the Tokyo Trials, and the Israeli-Palestine war.
Justice for Rwandese Victims
The Rwandan genocide was a tribal clash between the Hutu and the Tutsi over the country’s leadership. The state-sponsored violence saw the death of over one million people and the rape of over 250,000 women. Millions of other people lost their homes and were forced to flee the country. The genocide, which occurred between 7th April and 15th July 1994, was the darkest year in the country’s history. The international community did not intervene as the Rwandese killed each other.
The only source of help that the victims relied on was the international criminal courts and laws. The first criticism was the time it took for the tribunal to be formed, as the first trial was made three years later. The case took a long to prosecute and has been in progress for over 20 years without reasonable punishment for the offenders. Human Rights Watch accused the tribunal of being biased and could not offer justice to the victims. The international courts have failed to prosecute some of the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) rebel group, which has been the ruling party since then. One of the suspects in the Rwandan genocide, Kabuga, has been on the run for over 26 years, proving the inefficiency of the international courts. In an effective court system, the person could have been prosecuted and jailed if evidence was provided.
The Nuremberg Tribunal
International criminal law engineered the formation of the Nuremberg Tribunal to prosecute the perpetrators of the crimes committed against humanity during the Nazi era in Germany, where millions of Jews lost their lives. International criminal law’s role was to conduct a thorough investigation and ensure the people who perpetrated the heinous crimes were prosecuted.
However, there was bias because, during the era, both the Nazi Germans and the Allied forces took part in the mass murder. However, the prosecution focused only on the Nazis and left out other parties. The selective application of the law jeopardizes the principles of fairness. The Germans complained that the tribunal did not prosecute equal offenders from the Allied forces and other European powers such as Italy. When nations lose faith in the fairness of an international court, its jurisdiction is affected in the long run.
Palestine and Israeli Case
The Palestine-Israeli war has been ongoing for decades, and the ICC decided to intervene. The intervention was started and filed in 2015 to offer justice to the victims. However, the open investigation and proposed prosecution were one-sided, as they only targeted the Israelis and ignored all the Palestinians who organized and implemented the war on innocent civilians. Israeli accused the international court of being impartial and prosecuting in favor of the Palestinians, who, according to them, were equally guilty.
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch accused the ICC of only developing a case against Israel and ignoring all the atrocities committed by Palestine against Israeli civilians. Since the mandate of international criminal law is to understand cases and prosecute the victims without bias, international criminal courts are on the verge of losing their jurisprudence as people accuse them of being biased and one-sided.
Tokyo Tribunal
When Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed towards the end of the Second World War, there was a need to come up with a tribunal to investigate the crimes against humanity and prosecute the offenders. The Tokyo tribunal was, therefore, formulated to oversee the prosecution of prominent political and military leaders from Japan. The Japanese, however, claimed that there was victor’s justice in the case because the main perpetrators for the crimes were the Americans who used heavy atomic weapons but were not taken through similar scrutiny.
Therefore, the fight for justice was one-sided and motivated by political reasons. A fair and transparent process would have investigated the crimes committed in the country, such as the atomic bombs used by the US military to blow the cities. Since the Americans who bombed the two major cities were not subject to prosecution, international law offered partial justice. Real offenders are not punished, especially if they hold powers and positions of influence. The case showed how the international court favored the USA, which was equally guilty of the atrocities.
Conclusion
International criminal law is mandated to offer justice to all people without considering their social, political, or financial power. Numerous atrocities are being committed against innocent citizens, and it is the role of the international courts to ensure that people get justice. The original mandate given to the International Criminal Court is not being achieved as the courts exercise bias in their decisions. The Rwandan genocide case showed bias as the perpetrators who formed the government were not investigated; in Tokyo, the US was not investigated despite committing crimes against humanity. The massive expression of bias in favor of powerful nations and individuals is likely to affect the court’s reputation and jeopardize the dispensation of justice to countries.
Reference List
Adem SH, Palestine and the International Criminal Court(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.