International Criminal Court Intervention Research Articles

The Role of International Criminal Court in Prosecuting Crimes against Humanity

Crimes against humanity are grave offenses that shock the conscience of humanity, and demand a strong international response. The International Criminal Court (ICC), established in 2002, plays an important role in prosecuting individuals responsible for such heinous crimes, including genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. This research explores the role of the ICC in prosecuting crimes against humanity in Indonesia, a country with a complex history of human rights violations. Through a qualitative research design, including case studies, legal analysis, and content analysis, it assesses the effectiveness of the ICC's interventions, analyzes the international legal framework guiding its actions, explores the challenges faced, and evaluates Indonesia's cooperation with the court. The findings show a mixed record of effectiveness, with challenges in evidence collection, witness protection, and limited cooperation hampering some cases. Despite these obstacles, the ICC's involvement has shed light on past atrocities and provided an opportunity for victims to seek justice. The study concludes with recommendations to improve the effectiveness of the ICC in addressing crimes against humanity in Indonesia and underscores the importance of continued efforts to promote accountability and justice on a global scale.

Can the International Criminal Court prevent sexual violence in armed conflict?

Human rights activists, international organizations, and certain governments have championed prosecutions as a strategy to prevent conflict-related sexual violence, and the International Criminal Court (ICC) has focused extensively on prosecuting sexual violence crimes during its first two decades of operations. However, even as a growing body of empirical evidence suggests that the ICC contributes to improved human rights practices and the prevention of other atrocity crimes, such as violence against civilians, claims concerning the preventive effects of prosecutions on sexual violence remain largely untested. The purpose of this article is to test these claims. To this end, we analyzed the effects of ICC jurisdiction, interventions, and cross-case actions on sexual violence by government forces in intrastate conflicts from 1989 to 2018, using the Sexual Violence in Armed Conflict (SVAC) dataset. Contrary to the optimistic claims of proponents of prosecutions, we found that ICC jurisdiction and cross-case actions have negligible effects for this category of actors. We also found that ICC interventions are associated with increased sexual violence by government forces in intrastate conflicts. These findings suggest that prevention might require alternative—and, in some cases, potentially costlier—interventions.

The hidden impacts of the ICC: An innovative assessment using Google data

AbstractCommentators now regularly declare that the International Criminal court (ICC) – and international criminal law as a whole – is in crisis. It is certainly the case that the ICC faces a number of operational challenges, and that these challenges worry its defenders. However, one unexamined rationalist assumption is that the Court’s inability to deliver consistent outputs will mean waning influence. This article explores an alternative constructivist theory that the ICC produces diffuse social impacts that are not necessarily tied to its operating effectively. This theory is tested statistically using Google Trends data. Specifically, the article examines whether ICC intervention in a country is associated with more internet search for ‘human rights’. Taking this to be a measure of changing discourse in countries, the article finds that some types of ICC involvement are associated with a far higher interest in human rights, and that this interest only increases as ICC involvement extends in time. In short, despite its disappointments, evidence suggests that the ICC still serves a socio-pedagogical function. Though it does not fit well within a rational evaluation framework, this kind of information should be considered in ICC performance reviews.

El Coco Does Not Frighten Anymore: ICC Scrutiny and State Cooperation in Colombia

Abstract The preliminary examination of Colombia is widely regarded as a successful instance of positive complementarity. Under the watchful eye of the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP), Colombian authorities have implemented comprehensive reforms and negotiated peace with the country’s main rebellion. That said, how much credit can the International Criminal Court (ICC) claim for these outcomes? And how did ICC–state relations develop over time? Drawing on in-person interviews carried out during a research trip to Bogotá, this article conducts a within-case analysis of the situation of Colombia over fourteen years (2004–18), seeking to explore the motives underlying state compliance with ICC treaty obligations and trace the evolution of ICC–state relations throughout two consecutive administrations of opposite political color. Unsurprisingly, state elites and transitional justice experts push back against the idea that the OTP has held state authorities accountable to domestic and international legal obligations through its lasting monitoring and involvement in internal affairs. Besides, while participants in this study agree on the timeliness of ICC intervention, they are split on their assessments of the Court’s performance. Finally, interviewees tend to agree that, upon giving ‘green light’ to the finalized peace accords in early September 2016, the ICC has at best a marginal role in Colombia’s politics..

Opportunities and Challenges Seeking Accountability for War Crimes in Palestine under the ICC Regime

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is currently conducting a preliminary examination of the situation in Palestine, involving allegations against Israeli authorities and military personnel as well as what the prosecutor refers to as “Palestinian armed groups”. Contextualizing the ICC’s activity in Palestine to other ICC interventions touching on the interests of major powers, this paper focuses on setting out the opportunities and challenges for advancing accountability for violations of international humanitarian law in Palestine. The paper makes three overarching arguments, namely: 1) Whereas the ICC has not yet prosecuted any citizen of a global or regional power, it is increasingly scrutinizing the actions of such powers and seems willing to proceed with investigating highly sensitive situations, including potentially Israeli settlement activities. 2) Even if the ICC’s intervention should not lead to criminal trials of those most responsible for violations in Palestine, the process creates increased scrutiny and awareness of (certain types of) violations in Palestine, has significant legitimacy costs for Israel, and may in the best event influence state policies and practices, including with respect to complementarity. 3) Although the ICC process should be seen as a legal one, it has significant ramifications for – and is often being instrumentalized by – political entities.

Justice in conflict: the effects of the International Criminal Court's interventions on ending wars and building peace

Justice in conflict: the effects of the International Criminal Court's interventions on ending wars and building peace

International Criminal Justice Between Scylla and Charybdis\u2014the \u201cPeace Versus Justice\u201d Dilemma Analysed Through the Lenses of Judith Shklar\u2019s and Hannah Arendt\u2019s Legal and Political Theories

The present article discusses the “peace versus justice” dilemma in international criminal justice through the lenses of the respective legal (and political) theories of Judith Shklar and Hannah Arendt—two thinkers who have recently been described as theorists of international criminal law. The article claims that in interventions carried out by the International Criminal Court (ICC), there is an ever-present potentiality for the “peace versus justice” dilemma to occur. Unfortunately, there is no abstract solution to this problem, insofar as ICC interventions will in some cases be conducive while in others, they will be deleterious to peace. If a tension between peace and justice arises in a particular case, the article asserts, the former must be prioritised over the latter. Such a prioritisation, however, requires a vision of the ICC as a flexible actor of world politics which is situated at the intersection of law, ethics and politics, rather than a strictly legalistic view of the court. Ultimately, then, the present article seeks to probe whether the legal and political theories of Shklar and Arendt—in isolation, but ultimately also in combination—support such a flexible vision of the ICC.

“In the interests of justice?” The International Criminal Court, peace talks and the failed quest for war crimes accountability in northern Uganda

ABSTRACTThis article analyzes the first peace talks to take place against the backdrop of an International Criminal Court (ICC) investigation: the Juba Talks between the Lord’s Resistance Army and the Government of Uganda (2006–2008). Drawing on field research and original source material, it departs from well-worn peace versus justice debates and provides new empirical material to explore how the presence of the court shaped domestic political dynamics at Juba. It argues that at the level of broad rhetoric, the presence of the court created significant discord between negotiating parties. On a practical level, however, it created space for consensus, but not the type envisaged by international justice promoters. The court came to be seen by both sides as an intervention that needed to be contained and controlled. This resulted in the politically expedient Agreement on Accountability and Reconciliation, which showcased a transitional justice “tool-kit,” but was based on a shared desire to evade the jurisdiction of international criminal justice. Given its practical complexity, the transitional justice agreement was ultimately rejected by Joseph Kony, who became increasingly distrustful of his own negotiating team at Juba. In findings relevant to other contexts, the article presents in-depth analyses of how domestic political dynamics around the ICC intervention produced a national transitional justice framework designed to protect both parties from war crimes accountability.

Targeting justice: targets, non-targets and the prospects for peace with justice

ABSTRACTOngoing conflicts are increasingly accompanied by calls for judicial interventions by the International Criminal Court (ICC). This has led to an impassioned debate regarding the effects that ICC interventions have on conflict dynamics and peace processes. A primary argument within this debate is that the targets of ICC arrest warrants will reject participating peace negotiations and instead commit themselves to political violence. This paper argues that it just as likely that actors not targeted by the Court may reject negotiating with their adversaries and thus commit to violence. The paper demonstrates this dynamic by examining two ICC interventions: northern Uganda and Libya. In both cases, the ICC’s intervention legitimized its non-targets – the government in Uganda and the coalition of intervening forces and opposition rebels in Libya – while bolstering their commitment to a military solution and their rejection of a political compromise to their respective conflicts. Ultimately, it is concluded, if both international justice and conflict resolution are to be pursued within the same contexts, it is critical to dispel popular assumptions in order to better understand the full spectrum of the ICC effects on conflict and peace dynamics.

Justice in Conflict: The Effects of the International Criminal Court's Interventions on Ending Wars and Building Peace, Mark Kersten (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016), 280 pp., $99.95 cloth, $45 paper.

Justice in Conflict: The Effects of the International Criminal Court's Interventions on Ending Wars and Building Peace, Mark Kersten (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016), 280 pp., $99.95 cloth, $45 paper.

Sarah M.H. Nouwen, Complementarity in the Line of Fire: The Catalysing Effect of the International Criminal Court in Uganda and Sudan

Complementarity is a key feature of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Yet, despite a growing body of literature on the ICC, the principle is not well understood by scholars and practitioners. Sarah M.H. Nouwen’s insightful book is essential reading for anyone who wants to appreciate the complex relationships that have developed between the ICC and national actors. It is especially timely given the growing rift between the ICC and some African states. A synthesis of law and legal anthropology, Complementarity in the Line of Fire draws on several years of fieldwork in Africa to challenge a variety of conventional wisdoms about the normative aspects of complementarity and its impact on states emerging from conflict. Nouwen, a lecturer in law at Cambridge University, sets out to test the expectation that the jurisdictional regime of the ICC would have ‘a catalysing effect at the domestic level’, or — to put it differently — that it would encourage national judicial systems to participate in the ICC’s struggle against impunity.1 Rooted in Article 17 of the ICC Statute, complementarity allows the ICC to exercise jurisdiction if and when national institutions do not exercise their domestic powers to try perpetrators of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Unlike the ad hoc tribunals, which enjoy primacy of jurisdiction, the ICC must defer to the jurisdiction of domestic courts investigating international crimes. As a result, under the ICC Statute, states — not the ICC — have the primary right to adjudicate such crimes. However, given that the ICC is authorized to intervene if states fail to exercise their jurisdiction, it was expected that the ICC’s shadow would have a ‘catalysing effect’ on states seeking to avoid ICC intervention. On the basis of two case studies, Nouwen explores whether and how complementarity has catalysed effects, and if not — the reasons behind its failure to do so.

The International Criminal Court and the Darfur crimes: The dilemma of peace and supra-national criminal justice

ABSTRACT The supra-national criminal prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC) of the alleged crimes committed in Darfur raises critical legal and conceptual issues. This article addresses the dilemma of peace, justice and reconciliation from a legal perspective, as well as the justice options that are available. The article also assesses the Sudan's criminal and military laws (both at the substantive and procedural levels) in terms of the country's ability to prosecute international crimes such as war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. In this respect, the article argues that these laws fall short of international criminal law standards and principles – particularly the amendments introduced after the United Nations Security Council referred the Darfur situation to the ICC. The article critically examines the Sudan government's policy of non-engagement, which ultimately led to supra-national criminal prosecution (represented by the ICC intervention under the complementarity principle of the Rome Statute). Finally, the article interrogates the report issued by the African Union High-Level Panel on Darfur (AUPD), and evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of its recommendations.

L'Afrique et le système de justice pénale internationale

AbstractAfrica has been ravaged by armed conflicts and/or oppressive regimes for decades. During those conflicts or oppressive regimes, heinous crimes such as genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity have been committed and made millions of victims. Among these, only a handful number saw some justice. This was possible essentially because the international community took a vigorous stance against the impunity of war criminals and genocidaires by creating international judicial mechanisms, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), to deal with it. Also, some individual African States have prosecuted international crimes within their municipal courts as well as some western States based on the universal jurisdiction principle. This article analyses the African contribution to the building of the international criminal justice system. It also addresses the African objections against the ICC intervention in Africa and the use of the universal jurisdiction criticized as a form of imperialism and neo-colonialism disguised in a judicial form. It concludes by exploring the feasibility of an African Criminal Court.