Introduction
A permanent court system called the International Criminal Court (ICC) is tasked with looking into, prosecuting, and convicting anyone accused of ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. Those in favor of the court state that it strengthens the rule of law, deters emerging war criminals, and ensures that justice for victims of violence is served. The ICC is ambitious in bolstering the worldwide criminalization of transnational offenses by allowing the international authority to handle the prosecution.
The court has assisted in punishing purported offenders, especially where local agencies lack the capacity, political will, or ability to extradite or prosecute them. However, most transnational crimes, such as drug trafficking, are outside the ICC’s jurisdiction. While the ICC plays a role in holding people liable for international delinquencies such as genocide, its jurisdiction over transnational crimes remains limited and a subject of debate.
Role of the ICC
The offenses of World War II brought forth the idea of an international criminal court. The global community recognized the genocide committed by the Nazis as the first actual international crime and wanted to liberate human beings from such horrible offenses. In the 1990s, the United Nations established a permanent court to deal with war crimes engulfing parts of Europe and Africa (Shelton, 2021).
More than 60 countries accepted the initial agreement in July 1998 (Klobucista, 2022). However, the agreement became practical and operational on July 1, 2002 (Klobucista, 2022). The court has over 130 signatories, with other nations expected to join (Shelton, 2021). However, the ICC has not gained support from leading global powers such as Russia and the United States, who claim it undermines their sovereignty.
The UN General Assembly identifies the role of the ICC as a multilateral system tasked with developing the rule of law and ending impunity. Its goals include promoting and upholding adherence to specific transnational legal standards intended to stop and outlaw acts of mass violence (Shelton, 2021). The court contributes to creating the rule of law and the fight against impunity by endorsing respect for transnational law and punishing the starkest offenses (Shelton, 2021). The ICC’s principal directive is to serve as a Court of last resort, having the power to bring cases against those charged with acts of war, savagery, and ethnic cleansing when local governments are hesitant or unable to do so.
So far, the court has seized several cases in Africa, particularly in Uganda, Kenya, and Sudan. The court delivered its first verdict and sentence in 2012 during the Lubanga case (Bower, 2019). The suspects were found guilty of conscripting child soldiers under 15 years and using them to conduct violent crimes in the DRC (Klobucista, 2022). The prosecution is used to deter the recruitment of child soldiers during armed conflicts.
An effective way to warn potential offenders that they could be held accountable for their atrocities is for the ICC to openly proclaim that it monitors the situation when a conflict erupts. As Kofi Annan, the former UN Secretary-General, said in 2004, “putting potential offenders on notice that impunity is not guaranteed” is how the court makes an impact (Klobucista, 2022). The ICC can draw international and local attention to the situation and persuade essential stakeholders to take a critical approach to end the conflict. Situations do not always have to lead to trials before the court when the ICC intervenes. The ICC investigations can prompt appropriate national authorities to investigate and indict alleged crimes in local courts.
Another way the court reduces impunity is by enabling victims to apply for reparations and join judicial proceedings. These novel aspects bring restorative and retributive justice closer and empower the victims. Another innovative feature is establishing the Trust Fund for Victims (Bower, 2019). It executes court-ordered reimbursements and offers aid to victims and their families. The Trust Fund enables them to rebuild sustainable livelihoods after regaining their place in their societies.
Adding more Offences to the ICC Statute
International organized crime cases can be added to the ICC’s jurisdiction by adding them to the ICC statute instead of interpreting the existing mandate. Some proposals have previously been made to include transnational organized crimes like arms trafficking, drug trafficking, and money laundering. When the ICC statute was drafted, crimes were distinguished under universal law between treaty and customary crimes, and only the second group could be included.
It was suggested that universal core offenses were only war crimes, aggression, massacres, and crimes against humanity (Bishay, 2021). Other crimes, like arms trafficking, are only punishable by convention, meaning that they are only punishable within the jurisdiction of members with treaties related to the subject (Bishay, 2021). However, these territories did not have to be members of the ICC statute (Bishay, 2021). The question is whether the distinction is sustainable and valid and whether including these additional offenses is desirable, warranted, and achievable.
The call for the ICC to take jurisdiction over these additional felonies, especially drug trafficking, led to the ICC’s establishment. The advantages of including transnational organized crimes in the ICC statute were that it would provide the ability to investigate global drug and arms trafficking rings and prevent obstacles to cross-border judicial and law enforcement cooperation (Bishay, 2021). In addition, offenders could face justice when local states cannot prosecute them (Bishay, 2021). Providing the ICC with jurisdiction over these crimes could ease the creation of a link between the illegal trafficking of arms and drugs and other criminal activities that violate fundamental human rights and jeopardize the constitutional order.
Despite numerous negotiations between several states, like Trinidad and Tobago, and the UN, these transnational crimes were not added to the final statute. It was argued that these offenses lack a global status similar to other crimes under international criminal laws, such as terrorism and aggression (Bower, 2019). Secondly, unlike war crimes and genocide, the scale and nature of these offenses are less severe. Thirdly, the global level of transnational crimes like drug trafficking would overwhelm the resources and capacity of any international court. Lastly, some countries like China worry that prosecuting these crimes by an international authority may raise sovereignty issues.
Conclusion
Impunity reigns with the absence of the rule of law. The ICC’s mandate is to strengthen the rule of law and reduce impunity by ensuring adherence to international statutes and prosecuting those who do not. Its role is essential as the nature of these norms is aimed at hindering crimes that threaten the world’s security, well-being, and peace.
Every effort to prevent destructive and heinous acts and omissions is worthwhile. Liability is essential for the sake of humanity’s past and future. Repetition of violence and recurrence of conflicts are likely to occur when impunity is left unaddressed.
References
Bishay, J. I. (2021). Cultural experts at the International Criminal Court (ICC): The local and the international. Nordic Journal of Law and Social Research, (11), 123-150. Web.
Bower, A. (2019). Contesting the International Criminal Court: Bashir, Kenyatta, and the status of the nonimpunity norm in world politics. Journal of Global Security Studies, 4(1), 88-104. Web.
Klobucista, C. (2022). The role of the International Criminal Court. Council on Foreign Relations. Web.
Shelton, D. (2021). International crimes, peace, and human rights: The role of the International Criminal Court. Brill.