Ethr 103 ethr 103 Week 13

Some advance the view that the creation of int’l. tribunals may have allowed powerful states to cover their unwillingness to take more decisive action, or it may have just been an exercise to ease their consciences for their failure to prevent or bring to an end the crimes now being punished (Cryer et al. at 36-7).

• Some advance the view that the creation of int’l. tribunals may have allowed powerful states to cover their unwillingness to take more decisive action, or it may have just been an exercise to ease their consciences for their failure to prevent or bring to an end the crimes now being punished (Cryer et al. at 36-7).

• Another counter-argument is that int’l. prosecutions are instituted mainly against citizens of states that are weak actors in the int’l. arena or fail to enjoy the support of powerful nations (counter-argument: this is probably true, but some enforcement is better than none!)

• In addition, an often-made critique is that int’l. tribunals are too distant from their primary audience, the victimised community. For example, the permanent International Criminal Court established with the Rome Statute (1998) is situated in The Hague. However, at the moment, it is investigating crimes committed in Africa. Such distance means that these courts are inaccessible to many of the victims and seen as responding more to an int’l. audience than the purported beneficiaries.

"In the prospect of an international criminal court lies the promise of universal justice. That is the simple and soaring hope of this vision. We are close to its realization. We will do our part to see it through till the end. We ask you . . . to do yours in our struggle to ensure that no ruler, no State, no junta and no army anywhere can abuse human rights with impunity. Only then will the innocents of distant wars and conflicts know that they, too, may sleep under the cover of justice; that they, too, have rights, and that those who violate those rights will be punished." -- Kofi Annan, United Nations Secretary-General

• "In the prospect of an international criminal court lies the promise of universal justice. That is the simple and soaring hope of this vision. We are close to its realization. We will do our part to see it through till the end. We ask you . . . to do yours in our struggle to ensure that no ruler, no State, no junta and no army anywhere can abuse human rights with impunity. Only then will the innocents of distant wars and conflicts know that they, too, may sleep under the cover of justice; that they, too, have rights, and that those who violate those rights will be punished." -- Kofi Annan, United Nations Secretary-General

We have just explained the need for an international criminal court. We shall now discuss why this court needs to be of a permanent nature.

• We have just explained the need for an international criminal court. We shall now discuss why this court needs to be of a permanent nature.

• Prior to the Rome Statute, four international criminal tribunals (ICTs) had been established throughout the last century. However, these tribunals had important foundational shortcomings. Indeed, the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals, and the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda tribunals (ICTY and ICTR) were all ad hoc[1] courts, and not permanent criminal tribunals.

• This nature of the courts in question caused many defects that required the creation of a permanent court.

• [1] This is a Latin term which means “made or arranged for a particular purpose”. These were ad hoc courts because they were specifically created to only try certain crimes, and not to try any similar crimes that might be committed in the future.

Firstly, ad hoc courts have been criticised for imparting “selective” or “preferential” justice.

• Firstly, ad hoc courts have been criticised for imparting “selective” or “preferential” justice.

• Indeed, these courts only aim to punish the perpetrators of some crimes committed by certain people during a certain time period, and mostly in a specific context.

• However, such courts can not punish future crimes, or even worse, similar crimes committed elsewhere.

• So, rather then providing for objective justice these courts only punish certain people, depending on the political context. As an example, Post-WWII trials were labelled as “victors’ vengeance” or “victors’ justice” because those courts could only try the nationals of the defeated States.

• The selectivity in the establishment of such courts is disturbing. Why is it that only a handful of ICTs were established? Why is it that no tribunals were created for the thousands of similar crimes committed throughout the world?

The truth is that the establishment of ICTs so far relied on the initiative and political will of powerful states. The fact is that huge political support is needed to establish such courts.

• The truth is that the establishment of ICTs so far relied on the initiative and political will of powerful states. The fact is that huge political support is needed to establish such courts.

• This is not to say that ad hoc courts were politicised or did not act impartially. What we are saying is that it was thanks to the political support and initiative of some powerful states that their establishment was possible. It is clear that int’l. criminal justice requires a more objective and standard practice.

•