As well known, in the aftermath of World War II, the Allies proposed the creation of an international court for the persecution of war criminals, which became known as the International Court of Justice, later becoming the International Criminal Court (ICC), is based in Hague. It famously conducted the Nuremberg Trials and, in the modern era, tribunals for war crimes committed in Yugoslavia or Rwanda (Payne 2016). There are benefits and drawbacks to the existence of an international court. The primary benefit is that it establishes an international system of accountability. If there is a court, there is a law, and the globalized acceptance that war crimes and human rights should not be committed is a significant step forward from a world where no such rules existed. Although the ICC may not necessarily have the force of enforcement, it can nevertheless work with national and international law enforcement agencies such as Interpol to potentially capture and put on trial various war criminals. Albeit it may become complicated because not all nations accept the jurisdiction of the ICC, there are potential pathways, as was once again demonstrated with Yugoslavia. The biggest strengths of the International Court are its foundational and symbolic values, establishing a global effort to fight crimes against humanity.
There are many drawbacks to having an international court, given that it has little effective purpose. Out of potentially thousands of cases past and present, only 44 individuals have been indicted, with 14 seeing completed proceedings and nine convicted (Goodman 2020). The ICC lacks any inherent authority, highly reliant on state cooperation, some of which do not accept it or choose to use it selectively for global political means. For example, there is a significant call to investigate and charge leaders in Russia for their role in the human rights violations in Ukraine, which may be just. However, the numerous violations by the US in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other Middle Eastern nations, such as the use of undiscernible drone strikes on civilian populations, are conveniently ignored. The argument that is being presented is, despite being an International Court and supposedly neutral, it will still likely be politically influenced because it is located in the West and is sponsored largely by Western nations.
Crimes rising to the level of war crime should not be prosecuted by courts in the victim nations. Looking at the broader picture and removing the factor that the ICC has no technical enforcement power, it is best that crime of such nature are judged internationally or by a neutral third party. Holding the court in the nation responsible would be irresponsible, as very few countries are willing to admit such horrific wrongdoing, especially in the short aftermath. Meanwhile, holding the court in a country that fell victim to war crimes, which may potentially logically make sense, also creates issues of bias.
Similar to horrific crimes against any one person, war crimes significantly traumatize nations, their national mindset and attitudes. Regardless of if the leaders would like to seek a fair and impartial trial, the population would feel the anger and angst of the experiences, many nations holding on to those national traumas for decades. That means that the population, the media, and families would be talking about it, and there would be tremendous public pressure on prosecutors, defense lawyers, and judges. Despite war crimes being horrific, in a modern world valuing fair due process, holding a trial in an affected country would violate it. That is the reason for the existence of the ICC, to attempt to generate an impartial, neutral judicial setting to evaluate such crimes.
Reference List
Goodman, Sarah J. 2020. “The Effectiveness of the International Criminal Court: Challenges and Pathways for Prosecuting Human Rights Violations.”Inquiries Journal 12, no. 9: 1-33. Web.
Payne, Richard J. 2016. Global Issues: Politics, Economics, and Culture, 5th edition. Boston: Pearson.