Introduction
This paper delves into the crime of genocide which is the systematic destruction of a particular group of people based on their religion, race, or ethnicity. It is described as an act of heinous barbarism since it violates an individual’s basic human right to live (Shaw, 2012). This paper will thus delve into the cases of Darfur and Rwanda and will investigate the shortcomings of the ICC and ICTR in bringing justice to the victims of such massacres. This paper assumes that international institutions as they are now lack sufficient authority, the means of enforcing their decisions, and the presence of a sufficient framework for the administration of justice which results in their dubious record in administering justice in cases involving genocide.
The Nature of the Cases
In the cases of Darfur and Rwanda, hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed in what can only be described as a systematic annihilation of a people for no reason other than racial bias. In their attempts to prosecute those responsible, the ICC and the ICTR attempted to resolve such cases utilizing the tools that were made available to them.
Issues with the Administration of Justice in the Case of Darfur
When examining the case of Darfur, it can be noted that three specific factors prevented “true justice” from being administered, these encompass: the abstained votes from the U.S. and China in voting for a resolution for the administration of punitive actions, the lack of jurisdiction of the ICC in Sudan and lastly the lack of enforceability wherein the incumbent President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan could be brought to justice (Totten & Markusen, 2006).
Abstained votes from the U.S. and China
The main issue with the abstained votes from the U.S. and China when it came to administering a resolution to the issue of genocide within Darfur originates from the fact that neither nation would willingly want to set sufficient precedent for an outside organization to interfere in the domestic affairs of a state (Totten & Markusen, 2006). What must be understood is that without the approval of two of the most powerful members of the security council, no effective action could be done to commit to any form of enforcement of the ICC’s judgment through either economic or military means.
This is based on the theory of realism in international relations wherein it is stated that states are the primary actors in international relations and, as such, their actions cannot be unilaterally dictated by a mere organization that is not a state. In the case of China, it advocates a foreign policy initiative of non-interference in the domestic affairs of states and repeatedly utilizes such a position in all its international dealings (Totten & Markusen, 2006).
One of the reasons behind this is due to the fact it has its history of human rights violations in the form of the Uighers in the Xingiang region which the Han majority within China practically forced out of their native region. Thus, in the case of China, it would not want to set sufficient precedent for its actions to be judged. While such a situation does not exist in the case of the U.S., the fact remains that its domestic policy agenda is thoroughly against outside interference and, as such, this creates the problem of enforceability if two of the most powerful nations in the world refuse to intervene (Totten & Markusen, 2006).
Lack of Jurisdiction
Even though numerous charges were leveled against former Minister of State for the Interior, Ahmed Haroun, incumbent President Omar al-Bashir, and Anjaweed leader, Ali Kushayb for supposed crimes against humanity in the form of numerous acts of genocide, the fact remains that the warrants of arrest that were filed by the ICC and given to Sudan were unilaterally refused with Sudan stating that it did not recognize the authority of the ICC within the country (Totten & Markusen, 2006).
This is one of the main problems when it comes to the ICC since its lack of jurisdiction in certain cases impedes its ability to carry out successful sentencing. It should also be noted that even in cases where a country does recognize the arrest warrants of the ICC, it could still unilaterally refuse to hand over the person that they are charging due to a variety of possible reasons ranging from stating that it is a “domestic issue” to outright refusal on what the country would state is a violation of its sovereignty (Totten & Markusen, 2006).
The fact is that the ICC simply cannot be able to impinge on a country’s sovereignty and demand that justice is applied. It is usually the case that it relies on either the country agreeing to the demands of the ICC or relying on external actors in the form of states to help carry the verdict out. Unfortunately, such instances rarely happen and, as a result, many question the continued relevancy of the ICC given its lack of sufficient jurisdiction to bring people guilty of genocide to justice.
Lack of Enforceability
One of the main differences between the ICC and a court that you would normally see in countries such as the U.S., U.K., and France is the presence of a mechanism of enforceability for judgments that have been carried out. For example, if a man has been found guilty by a local court of law, his sentence is enforced by local authorities wherein he is either imprisoned for life or summarily executed in time. This method of enforceability is enacted through the authority placed upon the police by state law.
Such aspects also encompass factors related to the issuance of warrants, the establishment of restraining orders, etc (Totten & Markusen, 2006). Basically, the law allows the police to enforce justice by bestowing upon them the authority to do so. In the case of international relations, there is no overarching authority to bestow the ability to enforce justice on individual states. This means that even if the leader of a country was, in fact, complicit in acts of genocide there is presently no such thing as an international police force that could bring him/her to justice. This was one of the problems in the case of Darfur since despite the numerous warrants placed on local leaders; there simply was no way for them to be arrested within their country without the permission of the state, which the ICC never received (Totten & Markusen, 2006).
Such limitations reveal a significant problem in the case of the ICC since not only does the court lack sufficient authority to impose its will on states but it also lacks the ability to sufficiently enforce its decisions. This reveals the necessity of developing some means in which the problem of authority and enforceability can be addressed to prevent acts of genocide in the future.
Issues with the Administration of Justice in the Case of Rwanda
When examining the case of Rwanda, it is immediately apparent that the main issue in this particular case is that the court system that was established to handle the issues related to genocide was simply overwhelmed with the sheer amount of cases that needed to be handled (Mukeshimana, 2012). There were thousands of possible prisoners, hundreds of different cases, and an assortment of different testimonies that needed to be taken into consideration before a proper trial could be commenced (Mukeshimana, 2012).
The result was that the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda that was established to deal with these cases simply could not finish its mandate within the prescribed amount of time given by the United Nations. This means that the proper administration of justice was not implemented and shows how present-day international organizations are ill-equipped to be able to handle incidences of international crime and crimes against humanity in cases where thousands of potential individuals are involved (Mukeshimana, 2012). There is simply a lack of a sufficient system in place that can help to resolve such issues as compared to what is present in many western countries at the present.
Conclusion
This paper proposes that to handle future cases involving genocide, it would be necessary to develop an external organization that has the express authority to investigate and render judgment on issues related to genocide. While the international court of justice has charged several individuals with acts of genocide, the fact remains that so long as such individuals remain in power within their respective states it is impossible if not highly unlikely that they will be brought to justice.
One clear example of this comes in the form of the Kim dynasty within North Korea who has been accused of facilitating acts of genocide within the various internment camps within the country, yet, despite such actions, no member of the family has been brought to trial. The reason behind this is quite simple, based on the theory of realism states are the primary actors in international relations and, as such, cannot be commanded or compelled into action without their consent or through the interference of a more powerful state.
The presents a considerable dilemma in addressing human rights concerns on the issue of genocide since it is unlikely that the leader of a state that has been accused of facilitating acts of genocide will be brought to justice without the cooperation of the state. Taking such factors into consideration, it is the recommendation of this study that the theory of neoliberal institutionalism is utilized as a guideline in establishing a proper institution/organization to deal with the issue of genocide. Neo-liberal institutionalism acknowledges the fact that states are the primary actors in international relations; however, it also states that institutions can be utilized as a means of facilitating cooperation and collaboration (McQuiston, 2009).
Based on such a perspective, this paper proposes that several institutions be created that facilitate international collaboration on issues related to the investigation and the imposition of the necessary punishment on states or individuals that have been noted as facilitating acts of genocide. The reason behind creating several institutions instead of one large institution is to prevent the process of “red tape” wherein the approval of all members of the organization is needed to make a decision.
Such a process takes a considerable amount of time and effort which in the process can impede efforts to prevent and act of genocide from getting worse. Thus, such institutions will be created on a regional level with several key states acting as the “primary collaborators” (i.e. states with significant resources in terms of military and economic might) with “secondary collaborators” being composed of states with weaker and smaller economies and militaries.
Through such an arrangement, this can help to facilitate the creation of leadership roles for select countries within such institutions that will help to guide the member countries towards enacting some form of judgment against a state/individual that has been guilty of genocide within their region of the world. In cases where multilateral action is needed across several continents, inter-institutional collaborative practices can be implemented to enable institutions from various regions across the world to collaborate on a specific issue of genocide that may be beyond the capacity of the institution within that specific region.
The main purpose of such organizations is to institute an effective means of collaborative action on the part of multiple states within a specific region towards the prevention of genocidal activities. As indicated earlier, one of the main problems when it comes to bringing particular states or individuals to justice is the fact that as the most powerful actor in international relations a state cannot be ordered around by a mere institution. However, in cases where multilateral action is taken between several different states for the express purpose of preventing or addressing a topic of significant concern, then the state in question would need to yield or face possible economic sanctions or at worst a military intervention.
From this alone, it can be seen that the proposed mechanism for dealing with acts of genocide within specific regions of the world gets around the lack of sufficient authority of the ICJ through the use of multilateral agreements of cooperation and collaboration towards the prevention of acts of genocide. The main problem really with the ICJ or even the U.N., in general, is that the lack of sufficient authority in the case of international courts of law and the lack of enforceability of decisions makes it so that any decision that they come to can be considered severely lacking in actually creating an effective solution.
Not only that, the time it takes for them to come to a decision results could result in even more lives being lost. This was seen in the case of Rwanda and Darfur wherein the inaction of multiple state actors resulted in thousands dying of genocide. The main problem really with United Nations is that states are often unwilling to give up their sovereignty resulting in the U.N. being unable to create an immediate impact with its decision-making process.
It is due to this that a regionally specific external entity that has come about through multilateral collaboration is necessary in order to immediately intervene and administer justice based on the concerted decision of the states who are part of the regional institution. Such organizations will utilize a multilateral decision-making process to agree with the actions that must be pursued on a case-by-case basis to ensure that no “hijacking” of interests occurs. It is expected that through the establishment of such institutions, proper intervention and justice can be administered in cases involving the violation of human rights in the form of genocide.
Reference List
McQuiston, J. (2009). The Aral River Basin Crisis, Neorealism, and Neoliberal Institutionalism. Conference Papers — Midwestern Political Science Association, 1.
Mukeshimana, E. (2012). Bearing Witness to the Rwanda Genocide. Juniata Voices, 12122-134.
Shaw, M. (2012). From comparative to international genocide studies: The international production of genocide in 20th-century Europe. European Journal Of International Relations, 18(4), 645-668.
Totten, S., & Markusen, E. (2006). Genocide in Darfur: Investigating the Atrocities in the Sudan. (1st ed., pp. 5-45). Washington: Routledge.