Countries Fail to Make ICC a Priority

By Kalinga Seneviratne

Despite the many benefits the International Criminal Court (ICC) can provide for the development of international law and the democratisation of relationships between big and small countries, its application worldwide is being hamstrung because of US pressure and reluctant governments.

A workshop at the WSF yesterday said many signatories have failed to enact national legislation to ensure the application of the Rome Treaty, which establishes the ICC, and the United States has been applying pressure to ensure its armed forces are immune from prosecutions.

"Historically international law has been a tool of big nations to use against small nation," said William Pace, who heads the non-governmental Coalition for the ICC (CICC). "What is unique with the Rome Treaty, is for the first time we are applying international law against individual."

He pointed out that this could be applied to individuals of powerful countries as well, if they live in countries, which have ratified the treaty. The ICC will start official operations based in the Netherlands, by August this year with a staff of between 80 and 100, including judges from many countries. However, out of the 87 countries, which have ratified it, only five have introduced national legislation to facilitate the implementation of the international criminal statute at the local level.

Another problem pointed out Pace is the strong opposition of the US government to the ICC. The United States was one of only six countries which refused to sign the treaty and since it came into force in July 2002, after 60 countries ratified it, the Bush administration has been busy trying to undermine the court by signing bilateral treaties with several states, that offer immunity to its citizens.

Pace warned that if the world social movement does not strongly oppose this action, it will erode efforts to democratise international criminal law and bring perpetrators of war crimes to justice.

One of the problems of the Geneva Convention has been the lack of implementation mechanisms to prosecute those responsible for war crimes and the ICC provides this, said Raji Sourani, director of the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights in Gaza.
He warned that the fact that Israel and the US are the strongest opponents of the ICC should raise questions of whether they are planning to commit serious war crimes in the coming weeks or months.

Sourani also pointed out that only one Arab country -- Jordan -- has ratified the treaty, though most of them signed it originally. "It is a shame, but we are not giving up on it. We have coordinated our efforts to pressure governments (to ratify it)," he added.

Sourani said that most Arab governments say they are reluctant to ratify the treaty because the United States opposes the ICC and Israel has refused to sign on to it.

Jeanne Sulzer of the International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH) said that they are "horrified" by the fact that 17 countries which have ratified the treaty have signed bilateral agreements with the United States to exempt Americans from persecution by the ICC. In addition, the US Congress last year passed legislation, which obligates the US government to protect members of its armed forces from prosecution by the ICC. This law even allows the US to free, by force if necessary, US personnel who have been handed over to the ICC for prosecution.

She also raised the issue whether this is an indication that the US is planning to commit war crimes in the coming weeks or months. "To guarantee the credibility of the court," argues Sulzer, "we must give support to those countries which wants to be part of the court".

"A country has the duty to go for the truth of what happened. Each population has the right to know the truth. The state has to facilitate the right of relatives to know the truth. This is the trust of the ICC treaty," noted Columbian Alirio Uribe, president of the Colectivo de Abogados Jose Alvear Restrepo.

He added in a country like Colombia very powerful people, the police and the military cannot be prosecuted. They "know they can go on committing crimes without any punishment," said Alvear Restrepo. When justice within a country cannot be delivered, this is where there is a need for an ICC, he argued.

Uribe also reiterated the importance of passing national legislation to support the ICC. He said in Colombia there is no provision in domestic legislation for life imprisonment, which the Rome Treaty specifies for serious violators. Asset seizure for the ICC convicted, slavery, displacement of people, torture and sexual crimes are also not covered by national legislations.

"In countries where there's armed conflicts and systematic violations of human rights, we have to design legal strategies to judge them," noted Uribe.