The International Criminal Court (ICC) - Is It An Independent And Impartial Entity?
Berhane Alazar
July 14, 2008
The ICC has been in the news again. This time, the hoopla by the world media was the threat of issuing another arrest warranty of a prominent world figure. The issue of the ICC Chief Prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo of Argentina recommending arrest warrant against President Omar Al Bashir of the Sudan should not have come as great surprise however. After all, the US and many of its western allies have been playing the "Genocide card" in Darfur for some time now. The US even placed its former Secretary of State, General Collin Powell, in an uncompromising position when he proclaimed the Darfur issue "genocide" some time ago.
For the record, here is a quick glance on who the ICC is and what its mission might be:
The International Criminal Court is the world's first permanent war crimes tribunal and is headquartered in The Hague, Netherlands. It is an independent body, not a UN court.
The Rome Statute creating the ICC was adopted on July 17, 1998. The treaty went into force in July 2002 after ratification by 60 countries. It has been endorsed by 104 countries since, but Sudan is not one of them.
"The ICC acts only when member countries are "unwilling or unable" to dispense justice themselves. It may prosecute individuals responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes committed after July 2002". http://www.zaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=147555
So, we know the ICC is supposed to be an independent court and we understand it can issue arrest warranties to individuals it suspects that may have committed "Genocide" or "crimes against humanity".
The question is not to argue for or against the appropriateness of whether "Genocide" has been committed in the Sudanese region of Darfur. I simply do not have that first hand information of such atrocities being committed by anybody. I have read, like most of you did, that the civilian people in Darfur were victims of war and related danger. Nevertheless, who ever may have committed such reported "deliberate and Wanton" atrocities must unequivocally be condemned.
While the ICC has jurisdiction to issue warranties, the questions that come in mind are:
Can it issue an arrest warranty to a head of state whose nation is not a signatory;
Is the organization as "Independent" as its bylaws states?
If so, why are some leaders who have committed every bit of "Genocide" as those reported in the Sudan not indicted by the ICC?
Is the "Measuring stick" the ICC uses, if any, transparent or does it apply double standard system depending who has the blessing of the powers of the day?
These are some of the critical questions that need to be answered before its existence as a world body; and its actions can be justified and supported. Otherwise, it would just be one of the many self serving organizations that exist by playing the "Humanity" card for whatever purpose they wish to achieve!
For the record, here is a quick glance on who the ICC is and what its mission might be:
The International Criminal Court is the world's first permanent war crimes tribunal and is headquartered in The Hague, Netherlands. It is an independent body, not a UN court.
The Rome Statute creating the ICC was adopted on July 17, 1998. The treaty went into force in July 2002 after ratification by 60 countries. It has been endorsed by 104 countries since, but Sudan is not one of them.
"The ICC acts only when member countries are "unwilling or unable" to dispense justice themselves. It may prosecute individuals responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes committed after July 2002". http://www.zaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=147555
So, we know the ICC is supposed to be an independent court and we understand it can issue arrest warranties to individuals it suspects that may have committed "Genocide" or "crimes against humanity".
The question is not to argue for or against the appropriateness of whether "Genocide" has been committed in the Sudanese region of Darfur. I simply do not have that first hand information of such atrocities being committed by anybody. I have read, like most of you did, that the civilian people in Darfur were victims of war and related danger. Nevertheless, who ever may have committed such reported "deliberate and Wanton" atrocities must unequivocally be condemned.
While the ICC has jurisdiction to issue warranties, the questions that come in mind are:
Can it issue an arrest warranty to a head of state whose nation is not a signatory;
Is the organization as "Independent" as its bylaws states?
If so, why are some leaders who have committed every bit of "Genocide" as those reported in the Sudan not indicted by the ICC?
Is the "Measuring stick" the ICC uses, if any, transparent or does it apply double standard system depending who has the blessing of the powers of the day?
These are some of the critical questions that need to be answered before its existence as a world body; and its actions can be justified and supported. Otherwise, it would just be one of the many self serving organizations that exist by playing the "Humanity" card for whatever purpose they wish to achieve!
Print
Email
