The More You Know: Lessons in International Justice

Today, holding world leaders responsible for crimes committed while in office can generally be achieved through one of two bodies: the International Criminal Court (ICC); or ad hoc tribunals such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), or the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL). But for international justice enthusiasts, which route is preferable? In fact, each option has its own advantages and disadvantages, and perhaps these bodies could learn some lessons from one another.

The first lesson for the ICC is clear: more celebrities. The SCSL’s trial of former Liberian President Charles Taylor, which began in 2007, attracted little attention from the international media until recently, when actress Mia Farrow and supermodel Naomi Campbell appeared as witnesses. Since these ladies became involved in the trial, the Western media has become suddenly interested in war crimes committed in Liberia and Sierra Leone (though the movie Blood Diamond also helped make the subject matter sexier).

The ICC, meanwhile, has begun investigations into crimes in five countries – Uganda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic, Sudan, and Kenya – and the media still doesn’t know where those places are, let alone which non-celebrity was responsible for the mass murder of thousands of other non-celebrities. The ICC should start scouring its case to see if Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir ever met with Britney Spears, or if any of Congolese rebel leader Thomas Lubanga’s child soldiers wound up as part of the cast of Glee. The court needn’t restrict itself to celebrity witnesses though; just look at Charles Taylor’s defence lawyer, the Grandmaster Flash-quoting Courtenay Griffiths. Perhaps general awareness of the ICC could be boosted by the addition to the bench of Judges Judy, Reinhold, and Simon Cowell?

But despite its A-list witnesses, the SCSL could follow the ICC’s lead in one respect: securing a more reliable budget. Although the SCSL has cut the number of charges Charles Taylor faces from 17 to 11, the trial continues to drag on four years after it began. Each year the SCSL is forced to turn to international donor countries to acquire its $18M budget. The ICC, by contrast, has a permanent funding structure (the largest source of funds being the European Union), over 500 permanent staff, and an annual budget over $100M. The SCSL’s tight budget has led some to call for reducing the list of charges against Taylor further, the logic being that even a few successful charges will be enough to secure a life sentence.

Though ad hoc tribunals may not have the funding to compete with the ICC, they have a better track record of actually gaining custody of those they lay charges against. Charles Taylor and Slobodan Milosevic, who died while in the custody of the ICTY, are only the most prominent examples. The ICC, by contrast, has only taken custody of four of the sixteen individuals who have been indicted (two others have died, and three appeared voluntarily).

Why such a poor track record? In part, it is because the ICC has aimed too high, laying charges against even current national leaders such as Sudan’s al-Bashir. The experience of ad hoc tribunals shows that it’s best to go after individuals only after they have fallen from power, and have little to offer to friends still in high places. It’s true that the SCSL indicted Taylor while he was still President of Liberia, but by that time (summer of 2003) he had lost control of much of the country, and would soon resign and be exiled. The ICC, by contrast, has gone after al-Bashir while he is still in full control of Sudan (notwithstanding the autonomous southern region).

The difficulty with attempting to charge those still in power, is that they are still in power, and so have the ability to influence other states. For this reason al-Bashir was recently able to visit neighbouring Chad, where he was welcomed by the government. Chad has ratified the Rome Statute which established the ICC, Article 59 of which requires member states to comply with ICC arrest warrants. However, Chad has justified its refusal to comply by referring to an African Union (AU) resolution urging African states to defy the ICC on the al-Bashir case – even though the AU had removed that clause from the resolution shortly prior to al-Bashir’s visit to Chad.

The tribulations of the trials at the SCSL and ICC demonstrate that international justice remains hugely dependent on politics. These bodies focus mostly on African conflicts which are of little interest to the international media, their budgets are dependent on Western donor countries, and arresting the accused requires cooperation from countries which are often ill-disposed towards the courts while the suspects are still in power. A permanent institution such as the ICC would seem to indicate that progress is being made towards a world in which international crimes are brought to justice. Yet in practice we seem no further along than when ex post facto victor’s justice was meted out in the Nuremburg trials after the Second World War. At the very least, the ICC and ad hoc tribunals should improve by learning from each other.

And if the odd supermodel pops up in the trials, who are we to complain?

INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE: SUDDENLY COMPELLING

Share/Bookmark