ICC FAQ:
10 questions & answers about the
International Criminal Court
Q. What is the ICC?
A. The Court was created by the Rome Statute, which came into
force on July 1, 2002 . The ICC can only investigate alleged crimes committed
after that date. So far, 108 countries have ratified it. China United States Russia
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. What crimes can the ICC investigate?
A. The ICC treaty claims jurisdiction over 1) the crime of
genocide, 2) crimes against humanity and 3) war crimes
The court can indict persons from nations that are ICC members,
or who have committed the above mentioned crimes on the territories of
signatory states. Despite the fact that 3 of the 5 permanent members are not
affiliated to the ICC, the UN Security Council claims to be able to refer
individuals for investigation to the ICC even if they are not citizens of a
member state (articles 4 and 13 of the Rome Statute). Thus, the ICC implicitly
claims universal jurisdiction. This is why it has issued an arrest warrant for
President Al-Bashir of Sudan Darfur .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. Where does the ICC stand in relation to waging wars of
aggression?
A. The court does not, as yet, have the right to prosecute over
the crime of waging aggressive war, historically considered to be the supreme
international crime and the basis of the Nuremberg Tribunal which tried N azi
leaders and officials after the Second World War. The major western powers
behind the ICC have excluded this crime from the court's remit because they do
not want to have their political leaders and military personnel potentially
indicted. Britain America Iraq Yugoslavia
Infamously, the late British foreign secretary Robin Cook (one
of the principal forces behind the creation of the court) said: "This is
not a court set up to bring to book prime ministers of the United Kingdom United States
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. Who funds the ICC?
A. The ICC is predominantly funded by European governments. Of
the contributions to the ICC's total approved budget for 2009 of 96.4 million
euros, European states provided 57.2 million euros. Germany Britain Italy Australia Canada New Zealand
Former EU Commissioner Chris Patten has confirmed in his memoirs
that not only is Europe largely funding the ICC but also using taxpayers' money
to support 'advocacy' groups that promote the court: "The EU had been a
strong supporter of the establishment of the ICC; we had worked for years to
achieve its creation; we helped to fund organizations that themselves acted as
advocates for the court. Europe has adopted a common position on this." (Not Quite a
Diplomat, Penguin, 2006, p309)
The ICC's Assembly of States Parties Eighth Session report,
published in May 2009, confirms that the court is actively co-operating with
the EU Judicial Co-operation Unit (Eurojust) and Europol, the EU's embryonic
police force.
Bizarrely, the ICC admits that it also receives contributions
from large corporations and other private donors, which is extraordinary for a
public body that is supposedly impartial. However, it does not make publicly
available who these mysterious interests are.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. Does the ICC represent the 'international community'?
A. No, in reality, it only represents the governments of the
countries who have signed the treaty establishing the Court. The ICC member
states represent only 27% of the World's population. Russia China USA
Since there is no 'international community' in the political
sense of a unified global authority that the separate peoples of the World have
democratically consented to be legally subject to, the ICC has no moral
authority to pronounce its right to universal jurisdiction. The court has no
democratic mandate to back up its grandiose claims.
The claim of the ICC to be the guardian of the international
rule of law is preposterous as only nation-states can legitimately give rise to
criminal justice systems that can try and punish individual citizens. For this
organization to assert universal jurisdiction is neo-imperialistic as it
implies that sovereign nations that have refused to ratify the Rome Statute
should still nevertheless be legally subordinate to it. This is a recipe for a
new, Europe-directed, colonialism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. Who has the ICC opened investigations into and indicted
so far?
so far?
A. Fourteen individuals, all from African countries, have so far
been indicted. Only one trial has actually commenced, that being of Thomas
Lubanga from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Investigations have
been opened into the situations in Uganda Sudan Central African Republic
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. Is the ICC compatible with the international rule of law?
A. The 1969 UN Vienna Convention on international treaties
states that no treaty can be imposed on a country that has not ratified it.
Thus, the above mentioned article 13 of the Rome Statute is incompatible with
this basic traditional tenet of international law. It is also at odds with the
UN Charter chapters 1 and 2 that affirm the organization's respect for the
'equal sovereignty' of the member states.
What also undermines the ICC's claim to be upholding the
international rule of law is that it has awarded its own officials immunity
from prosecution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. Is the ICC really impartial concerning who it goes after?
A. The ICC is also incompatible with the concept of the rule of
law in the broader sense of this concept. This implies the non-selective and
impartial application of the law. So far, its chief prosecutor, Luis
Moreno-Ocampo, has only opened investigations into persons from African
countries. It has also been accused of being selective in terms of only
pursuing individuals from one side of conflicts in which international crimes
are alleged to have taken place.
Why is it, for example, that Joseph Kony of the Lords Resistance
Army in Uganda Darfur who have very clearly forcibly
recruited child soldiers, despite the fact that the Thomas Lubanga trial
focuses exclusively on child soldiers?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. Does the ICC respect the human rights of those it indicts?
A. The ICC's record to date has been very questionable. The
chief prosecutor, for example, perverted the course of justice by deliberately
refusing to hand over important 'exculpatory' documents from the UN to the
defense team of Thomas Lubanga, a citizen of the Democratic Republic of the Congo The Hague
In addition, there has been a huge funding imbalance between the
prosecution and defense teams in this case. The ICC prosecutor has had 20
researchers out in the field making a case against Lubanga, whereas his defense
has only been able to afford a single person. On top of this, the ICC judges
have decreed that a majority of the witnesses testifying against the accused
can do so anonymously - so making effective cross-examination impossible - and
in private. On top of all this, so-called 'victim statements' have been made to
the court which can only have the effect of prejudicing the minds of the judges
against the person in the dock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. Who is employed by the ICC?
A. The ICC is also top-heavy with Europeans and westerners in
relation to those employed within its professional ranks. Out of 294 officials,
147 come from Europe and other western nations. France UK Germany Europe accounts for 5 employees in key posts,
whereas there is only 1 African.
No comments:
Post a Comment