Lone stand for justice (against ICC)

The Telegraph (U.K.) ^ | 07/01/2002 | editorial board

[Pokey78]

It may seem odd that anyone could be against the establishment of an international tribunal to investigate war crimes and genocide.

Many people - by no means only liberal internationalists - dislike the idea that dictators are able to escape justice simply because their own national legal systems have been subverted.

Such people find it hard to understand why America is refusing to support the International Criminal Court (ICC), which is formally constituted today. Clare Short, the International Development Secretary, has described Washington's attitude as "an enormous disappointment".

Cherie Blair has called it "a lost opportunity". Surely, they say, the Americans must accept that human rights apply to everyone.

Yet this is to beg the question. The dispute here is not about whether Washington supports human rights. America has an immeasurably better record on freedom and democracy than most of the nations that have ratified the ICC (such beacons of justice as Tajikistan, Cambodia and the Congo).

The issue, rather, is: who has the authority to bring cases to trial? The essence of any legal system is that there is an agreed enforcement mechanism. When someone commits a crime, many of his victims may have a legitimate grievance, but, instead of taking action themselves, they allow the properly constituted authorities to prosecute on their behalf.

A similar compact pertains among states. There must be an accepted way of deciding who has jurisdiction in any given case. Until now, it has been agreed that the legitimate authority is the state on whose territory the alleged offence was committed.

The Statute of Rome, which sets up the ICC, tosses that precept aside and, in so doing, destroys the understanding on which international law has rested for centuries. For the first time, it establishes the principle that treaties are binding not only on the states that are party to them, but also on non-signatories.

Hitherto, legal systems have been rooted in democratic assemblies. Laws are passed by national legislatures, which are responsible to their peoples, and treaties signed by accountable governments. But, from today, the ICC will cast off the guy-ropes that attach it to its constituent states.

From now on, it will function as an international body answerable to no one. The idea that laws ought to be made by the people's representatives will be replaced by the pre-modern concept that law-makers are answerable to no one but themselves.

Well, you might say, what's so bad about that? After all, international judges are surely likely to be more impartial than the judiciary of some tin-pot dictatorship. Don't be so sure. Consider just a few of the recent high-profile cases that have involved extra-territorial jurisdiction.

There was the disgraceful saga of Gen Augusto Pinochet's detention, but, oddly, no equivalent arrest of Fidel Castro. There have been attempts to indict Ariel Sharon, but not Yasser Arafat. There was a ruling against the British Government following the execution of an active IRA unit in Gibraltar, but no international case has ever been brought against the republican movement over, say, human rights violations at Enniskillen.

Seen against this background, Washington's belief that the ICC would become a vehicle for Left-wing jurists, radical Islamists and assorted anti-Americans suddenly seems rather more reasonable. Already there have been mutterings about trying Henry Kissinger and indicting Margaret Thatcher for the sinking of the Belgrano. There have even been suggestions that Western peacekeepers should be tried for collateral damage in the Kosovar and Afghan campaigns.

Given the activism of the judiciary in general, and of international courts in particular, it is perfectly possible to envisage such cases coming to trial. George Bush is quite right to stand up for the principle of national democracy. We only wish our own Government had half as much sense.

[marktwain]

The Telegraph has always been a beacon of reason in a socialist Britain.

[LibertyThug]

Thank you for this article. It gives me much more ammunition to use in my 'discussions' with those who think the world court thing is a good idea.

[WakeUpChristian]

[DB]

How about the simply fact that you no longer have any constitutional rights with a world court! You also have no vote or say of any kind on what is illegal under the world court.

[Raymond Hendrix]

b

[meenie]

The Milosevic trial is a good example, where the judge is the main prosecutor. His trial is similar to: Heads we win, tails you lose. A kangaroo court in the finest sense of the word.

[LibertyThug]

We need nothing from them or from that court. We always need to remember that Gore would have signed up for this with his tail wagging.

[Ole Okie]

We always need to remember that Gore would have signed up for this with his tail wagging.

Good gosh yes! I think that those who have eyes to see and ears to hear can realize the difference between Dubya and Girlie Gore.

Sick Willie Clitoon had already signed us up for this thing. Girlie Gore would have gone right along with this and with the Kyoto treaty.

[gaspar]

This is a brilliant piece. To jettison a millenium of international law because it feels good to do so is absurd.

[brat]

Proud to be an American.