International Criminal Court

Home
International Criminal Court

Listen to ICC radio in (the) C.A.R.

One of the controversies the ICC has had to deal with is the notion that it is "biased" against Africa. Even though most of the ICC's work to date has been in African countries, this is a pretty hollow charge; the reason that the ICC is operating in three of these four states is because they asked it to do so.

Much of the resistance to the ICC in Africa, particularly since the indictment of Sudanese President Bashir, has come from other heads of state. Hence the AU resolution last week rebuking the court, which was concluded in a closed-door session and evidently did not garner the support of all participants.

Discomfort with the ICC among Africans on a populist level, though, does undeniably exist, even if much of it seems based on misinformation (often peddled by state governments). To counter these negative impressions, the ICC is taking to the airwaves.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) today launches a series of radio programmes in the Central African Republic (CAR) as part of an outreach campaign aimed at informing the country’s population about the court’s mandate and activities.

The 13-episode series, which will be broadcast in the Sango language, is called “Understanding the International Criminal Court” and uses a question-and-answer format. At least 14 separate radio stations are expected to air the programmes.

Crank that dial.

(image from flickr user fatcontroller under a Creative Commons license)

Not out of hot water yet, Bashir

As if being indicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity was just a lukewarm bath...But prosecutors are going to go for the full boil -- a charge of genocide -- again, as the ICC will re-hear evidence for the crime that it declined back in its original March ruling.

The court, set up in 2002 by international statute, could change its decision if the prosecution could gather additional evidence, the ICC said in March.

My friend Kevin Jon Heller has much more on this, but I didn't think this was (or at least should be) about gathering additional evidence. Any overturning of the rejection of the genocide charge would seem to require an acceptance that the Sudanese government demonstrated intent to target a specific ethnic or racial group; and I'm not sure how additional evidence would prove this intent beyond the extent to which it's already been demonstrated. I've read plenty of accounts, for example, of the prevalence of racial epithets during Janjaweed attacks, some of which was conducted by the UN's own Commission of Inquiry.

So while I think a genocide finding would be legally correct, I have to assume that it was a political decision (albeit a kind of bizarre one) not to indict Bashir with the g-word, and I thus don't hold out too much hope of the ICC changing its mind.

Is rape also torture?

The International Criminal Court yesterday formally ordered that Jean Pierre Bemba, a former Congolese vice president and militia leader, stand trial on charges that he commanded his militia in a campaign of rape, murder and pillage in the Central African Republic. Bemba was arrested last year in Belgium where he was living in exile. The case against Bemba is unprecedented in international war crimes tribunals for the fact that it will center on the crime of rape. The number of alleged rapes by Bemba's troops far outnumber cases of murder that his troops are alleged to have committed in the Central African Republic in 2002-2003. Rape was Bemba's primary weapon of war. Accordingly, much of the jurisprudence decided upon by this case will have long-lasting effects on how future war crimes prosecutors and judges approach cases of rape-as-a-war crime. At issue yesterday was whether or not the prosecutor could charge Bemba for both rape AND torture for the same act of rape. That is, when a soldier under Bemba's command raped a victim, the prosecution argued that this soldier is also committing the crime of torture. In yesterday's pre-trial ruling, ICC judges said, basically, "not so fast." Bec Hamilton summarizes the key point.
Although during the confirmation hearing the Prosecution said that Bemba’s...troops “used torture through acts of sexual violence for the purpose of punishing and intimidating the civilian population for allegedly sympathizing with Bozizé’s rebels, as well as for the purpose of discriminating against their victims”, the Chamber found that the specific purpose was not clearly articulated in the Amended Document Containing the Charges, and therefore the Defence did not have sufficient notice to respond to the charge. (para 299/300) It was this lack of notice, rather than an ‘in-principle’ view that both rape and torture as a war crime could not be charged for the same act of rape, that lead the Chamber to dismiss the charge of torture as a war crime.
So, it seems we will have to wait a bit longer for a resolution to the legal question: "is rape also torture." If you want to learn more about the terrible crimes that occurred in CAR during 2002-2003, this Amnesty report is a good place to start.

Could Ratko Mladic playing ping-pong hurt Serbia’s EU chances?

Wednesday night, the Bosnian television program "60 Minutes" broadcast videos of former Serb general Ratko Mladic, who has been indicted to join his former political leader, Radovan Karadzic, at the International Criminal Tribunal for the forme Yugoslavia in The Hague. Unlike Karadzic, whose elaborate disguise was finally found out last year, Mladic is widely believed to have been living in the open and with the collusion of Serb authorities for the past decade-plus. This allegation would seem to be supported by the videos, some of which the "60 Minutes" producer claims are less than two years old.

Serbia, though, denies that any of them could be "less than eight years old." At particular issue, among videos showing Mladic dancing, toasting at a wedding, and getting in a snowball fight, is one depicting him playing table tennis at an army barracks, which is one of the locations he is reputed to have been spending time in the past few years. This was confirmed a couple days ago, when one of Mladic's former bodyguards attested to have been protecting him at the barracks, under Serb government orders, between 1997 and 2002.

The court in The Hague says that it already has the videos that were shown on Bosnian television. And the broadcast does seem suspiciously timed; on Monday, EU foreign ministers are scheduled to discuss Serbia's cooperation with the Hague tribunal and the search for Mladic, which has been an important condition in Serbia's push for EU membership.

Could Bosnia be seeking to cast doubt on Serbia's commitment to finding Mladic, in hopes of undermining its EU bid? It's entirely possible. But it was also widey -- and reasonably -- suspected, even before his former bodyguard's recent testimony, that Mladic has spent a long time living under at least quasi-government protection. This Serb government is more committed to joining the EU than its predecessors, but it faces the same quandary, in that Mladic, unfortunately, remains a popular figure among segments of the Serb population. Mladic should be even easier to arrest than the heavily disguised Karadzic, though, so Serbia should make sure that he is not spending his days playing ping-pong in army barracks.

(image from flickr user leasing2008 under a Creative Commons license)

Abuses and investigations in Burma

I'm sympathetic to the argument that human rights lawyers Geoffrey Nice and Pedro Nikken make in this Washington Post op-ed: that interest in Burma should go beyond the legitimate calls for Aung San Suu Kyi's freedom; that grave human rights abuses, probably amounting to war crimes and crimes against humanity, have been going on unchecked for a long time in the country; and that the international community, including the United Nations, have long known about these travesties. But I find their proposed solution -- "maintain[ing] our gaze" and "authoriz[ing] a commission of inquiry" -- well-prescribed (both by these two and by one of our own) but not wholly fleshed out here and, if anything, insufficient.

As symbolically (and actually) egregious as the continued imprisonment of Burma's celebrated pro-democracy leader is, I've always found the international attention heaped upon her -- as if her release alone would clear the way for a domestic Burmese solution -- troublingly myopic. This has in fact allowed the Burmese generals to focus their propaganda efforts on show trials and (severely) limited accommodations for one individual, even as the subjugation of the rest of the country's population steamrolls along. Similarly, for Burmese to rest their hopes on Suu Kyi's shoulders is to foster an illusion that her release would wholly relieve them of their plight.

But Nice and Nikken are right; the world has known about these pervasive patterns of abuse for a long time. Despite citing a study that relied only on UN documentation, though, the authors allege that "the U.N. Security Council has not systematically investigated these abuses." A commission of inquiry mandated for a wide-ranging investigation is doubtlessly necessary, but even a full accounting of abuses will not, like the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, guarantee that the abuses cease.

I don't expect an op-ed to propose a long-range, comprehensive plan for Burma's rehabilitation (nor do I have one), but some acknowledgment of the factors that would make a commission of inquiry difficult -- the chokehold that the country's generals maintain over the population, their North Korea-esque penchant for unpredictable intransigence and intractability, and the dire humanitarian needs of the country -- seems necessary (the ICC indictment of Bashir could provide lessons, for instance). Urging on the Security Council and a commission of inquiry is important, but important players like China, India, and the United States cannot hide behind either the UN or a claim to need to know more.

(image of Burmese generals, from flickr user deepchi1 under a Creative Commons license)

Gaza investigation to move forward

Mark rightfully expressed dismay last month when the Israeli government signaled that it would not cooperate with a UN investigation into alleged crimes (on both sides) during the December 2008-January 2009 Operation Cast Lead, even though the mission was to be lead by a respected jurist, Richard Goldstone, on whom any claim of anti-Israel or anti-Semitic bias would, by all accounts, fall objectively flat. Israel's position hasn't changed, but Goldstone's team is saying that they will be moving forward with the investigation, even with the regrettable non-participation of the Israeli government.

This is obviously not the ideal situation, because Goldstone's inquiry is not a confrontational one. There are two entrances to Gaza, but the appearance of going through Egypt is likely even less palatable to the investigation's critics than the notion of the investigation itself. This is what makes Israel's stubborn refusal to cooperate so wrong-headed: the mission was supposed to travel to Israeli towns to investigate Palestinian rocket fire, but will be unable to do so if it is not allowed into Israel. The Israeli government has a legitimate interest in not wanting the investigation to be or appear one-sided; but the best way to ensure that would have been to work with the investigators, not make their job more difficult and create a self-fulfilling prophecy of bias in the process.

Darfuri rebel sets a good example

Well, not for the war crimes he has been indicted for committing during a particularly ravaging attack on an AU-protected camp, but for agreeing to show up at The Hague for trial. This sets a positive precedent for others in Sudan indicted by the ICC, such as, um, that president guy. But even though this may put Bashir in an awkward position -- he opposes both the ICC and the Darfuri rebels -- don't expect his plane to veer out his much-traveled regional orbit toward the Netherlands any time soon. He has developed quite a knack for talking out of both sides of his mouth, so I fully expect him to find a way to condemn both the rebels' war crimes and the court trying them, without so much as a flinch of hypocrisy.

(And as Kevin Jon Heller notes, it is unfortunate that the first trial involves Darfur rebels, and not government forces; but it will be that much more unfortunate if the only trials to go forward are ones that involve rebels, and not those responsible for creating the bleak environment that Darfur has been reduced to.)

Russia Calls for International Pirate Court

Russia might be lukewarm on the ICC, but, according to Russia Today, it is more open to the idea of a pirate court, as its Prosecutor General's office is pushing for the creation of a UN special tribunal to try Somali pirates.

The UN has responded with refreshing unanimity on the pirate issue, but I don't think a Yugoslavia or Rwanda-style tribunal is in the offing just yet. Those institutions -- in addition to being a little on the costly side -- are also meant for national reconciliation. Creating a pirate court, on the other hand, would do little to help reconstitute Somalia's shattered law and order system and curb the piracy pandemic. Existing methods of justice, involving extradition to countries with reliable court systems, will likely prevail for now.

Just imagine what Samuel L. Jackson could do in a good pirate court scene, though.

ICC on Film

Just a quick heads up for those in D.C., the first annual Politics on Film Festival will kick off tomorrow night. It runs through Sunday. Looks to be a great slate of films, particularly The Reckoning, a documentary about the ICC. I'll be at the screening tomorrow night and will report back.