 |
COURT |
 |
|
|
COURT |
|
 What
is ICC The
Nuremberg Legacy ICTFY Why
Do We Need ICC? Ratification
Status |
|
Conclusion The
Rome Statute The
UN Charter Bibliography |
|
|
| As we enter the new millennium, we have a realistic hope of creating a truly just future. The 20th century bear the marks of atrocities and pain. Previous attempts to secure the foundations of a global civil society have been weak and incomplete. At the beginning of the 21st century it seems that the modern configuration of states is at the crossroads. On the one hand, there has been increasing criticism of Eurocentric assumptions and acceleration of the movements that reject 'universal values.' Some argue that the main political value worth fighting for is belonging to a society with traditions and beliefs different from other groups. On the other hand, there is an apparent need to create new international structures, which could be utilized by states to coordinate their approaches for global problems, such as environmental pollution, terrorism, and human rights. |
| The principle of international order based on the rule of law has not been fully established yet, but it has been gradually gaining a world-wide recognition. Over fifty years ago, the United Nations recognized a need to create a permanent legal structure to prosecute individuals for international crimes. Since then, a body of international law has been growing at a high speed. Even so, it remains difficult if not impossible to bring individuals to justice for crimes of international nature. [2] The International Criminal Court now offers the opportunity to utilize previous experiences. Hans Corell, United Nations Undersecretary General for Legal Affairs described his support for a permanent International Court in the following terms: |
| The very reason that certain armed conflicts occur, entailing crimes against international humanitarian law, is in my view, that the international community has so far been unable to demonstrate that those responsible would be brought to justice.. Until the day when the international community can demonstrate that those who ultimately bear the responsibility for violations of the most fundamental rules for the protection of the human being are brought to justice, history will repeat itself."[3] |
| I suggest that the proposed ICC
should be considered in terms of a changing global environment and be looked
upon as a manifestation of a growing international conviction that the
global community must address the inhumane crimes effectively through a
permanent international criminal court. This point can be argued
by examining three international relations theorists: Seoym
Brown, Michael
Klare, and James
Rousenau. |
| The conclusion that can be drawn from these three theorists is that the world is currently undergoing, in Karns¡¯ words, ¡°a paradigm shift¡± from individual state interests to concern for common security and common future: ¡°for many people, security has become far more than protecting national territorial spaces and the people who inhabit them or exercise power within them.¡±[4] Accordingly, Brown concludes that ¡°the notion of a stable nation state system has turned out to be an oxymoron.¡±[5] These arguments imply change in the definition and boundaries of state sovereignty. As argued by Mansbach, ¡°national and global security are merging¡± due to the complexity of the interdependent world, where individual interests are inseparable from group interests.[6] In other words, when the scale of policy making falls short of the magnitude of a problem, the interests of humanity suffer accordingly. |
| The new paradigm results in a growing awareness of the vulnerability of humanity. Along these lines, Rosenau concludes that due to the bifurcation of the world politics, states are no longer the only key actors and their authority is being constantly challenged. Hence, he argues that: |
| As transnational and subnational actors in the multi-centric world become increasingly active and effective, as they demonstrate a capacity to deal with problems that states have found intractable or beyond their competence, citizens will begin to look elsewhere than the national capital for assistance. [7] |
| Likewise, Klare agrees that since states are sharing their exclusive authority with other non state actors, the international community ¡°will have to devise new instruments of governance and crisis control.¡± [8] It could be argued that increased involvement in international agreements, treaties, and organizations, will require states to cede more and more sovereignty rights to international organizations.[9] The World Development Report by the World Bank states that even though the states still maintain substantial control over policies and rules within their jurisdictions, global trends and international agreements impose greater influence on what choices governments make.[10] Rosenau¡¯s claim of skill revolution is at work here: ¡°people are now more mobile, more educated, and better informed about conditions everywhere.¡±[11] |
| Conceivably, those for whom nation-states remain the fundamental authority on this planet, the ICC is a very distressing development. In fact, the ICC¡¯s effects on sovereignty seem to be the main holding block for the opponents of this organization. Granted, states remain very protective of their sovereign rights and are ¡°reluctant to forfeit any prerogative unless it is clearly in their interests to do so.¡±[12] Nevertheless, the decision to surrender some sovereignty in the case of establishing the ICC came from a conviction that crimes, which will be adjudicated in the Court, violate not only the individual victims, but also the interests of the whole humanity.[13] |
| Globalization, fragmegration, the skills revolution, mass killings of civilians, increasing awareness of atrocities due to media coverage, and increasing awareness of the human rights in part as a result of the experience of international tribunals have contributed to the evolution of the international justice system. As a consequence, justice is no longer viewed ¡°in contra-position to peace¡±.[14] In fact one can argue that peace is not possible without justice, and this positive development is due to ¡°growing influence of international civil society¡±, the voices of which cannot be ignored by any international actors.[15] |
|
Ekaterina
Kuznetsova
POS
385 Conflict and Security in Contemporary World
Professor: Dr. Kuzma The materials used in these pages are parts of my Thesis
Project
for the Honors
Program
University
of Southern Maine |