With the ICC, there are some areas of clear effectiveness, and some serious flaws as well. Here are a couple of ideas. The main piece of legislation to talk about is the Rome Statute of The International Criminal Court, but discussing cases would also be helpful, as well as referring to the articles below.
Positives:
- The jurisdiction is limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole, and less significant crimes are prosecuted through complementarity (prosecuted domestically), which is a better and more effective use of resources, but can also mean that some cases go unpunished
- For a case about the effectiveness of the court in using complementarity, see the 2005 article
Britons face Iraq war crimes trials
- There is a greater sense of justice for individuals through witness testimonials and individual accountability
- There is increasing ratification by UN member states
- The ICC achieved its first ruling on June 4th 2012, and found Thomas Lubanga, a Congolese rebel leader, guilty of war crimes for using child soldiers between 2002-03
Negatives:
- If a country has not implemented the Rome Statute provisions, then the court has very little jurisdiction over them, which is a serious flaw
- There are a number of significant missing signatories, as Russia, China, and the US have not signed up
- The idea of the Peace v. Justice debate – varying views on the concept of justice – do we want more prosecutions or do we offer amnesties to achieve peace in the countries affected
- Issues with the fairness and transparency of processes, e.g. in the article
Lubanga’s lawyers denounce ICC trial as unfair (2009), there was some discussion of mismanagement of evidence by ICC prosecutors in the Thomas Lubanga case
- Resource efficiency concerns, as it took 7 years to start the first trial
Hope this helps, and good luck!
