From Monday to Wednesday this week, I visited The Hague in the Netherlands with the International Criminal Court Student Network (ICCSN). The purpose of our “field trip” was to learn about the ICC and its work in a more concrete and realistic manner, as opposed to the highly theoretical aspects we learn about in class. The trip was immensely educational, challenging, and fascinating. I learned so much from these three days that by the end of it, there were countless thoughts about the ICC and international justice in general floating around in my brain, and I could hardly contain them. I’m not really sure if this will interest anyone other than myself, but I’m going to write a couple of blog posts based on my experiences and based on the things I’ve learnt and seen firsthand. Who knows - perhaps it will someday help other interested students gain a different perspective on the work of the ICC.
Credit: iccnow.org
Our first meeting was with the Coalition for the ICC (CICC), a NGO created in 1995 to support and improve the work of the ICC, and ensure that it is fair, effective, and independent. The coalition has a membership of over 2,500 NGOs who are interested in the work of the ICC in some capacity. The CICC focuses on disseminating information about the Court’s activities, raising awareness of its work, coordinating civil society efforts regarding the ICC, providing NGOs with access to negotiations and a role in investigations & prosecution, promoting ratification of the Rome Statute and the implementation of ICC legislation, monitoring the activities of the Court, and more generally working to make the ICC more fair and efficient. The CICC has the target of universal ratification - which means that one if its major campaigns focuses on encouraging countries around the world to sign the Rome Statute and support the ICC. Another aspect of the CICC’s work I found to be very beneficial was their work regarding communications and outreach. The presenter mentioned that the ICC does not do a very good job of communicating with victims and people on the ground and helping them understand the importance of the ICC; this ignorance of the ICC’s work can result in the lack of support for the Court on the ground. The CICC’s work in remedying this can prove to be very effective.
Although the CICC tries not to take a strong opinion on any issue and strives to remain a neutral body and a forum for discussion, one very controversial point was brought up. When asked, the presenter said that it was actually good that some major countries like the US and China are not parties to the Rome Statute, and do not support the ICC. He said that in its most formative and sensitive years, the Court has mostly enjoyed widespread support from its state parties, who are largely countries who genuinely want to further the work of the ICC. If the U.S. and China, for example, had become state parties to the ICC, the dynamics would have changed completely. These countries might not have supported the ICC to such an extent, and the Court might have experienced much more opposition and division from within. So the fact that some of the world’s superpowers have not supported the ICC has potentially helped its early development. The important thing, he said, was not to have all states sign the Rome Statute, but to have all states cooperate with the ICC regardless. I found this a fascinating - and perhaps contradictory viewpoint, for at the same time the CICC is working towards universal ratification.
Another interesting point was that there is a huge division between the perceptions of officials and governments and those of civil society regarding the ICC. Governments are often against the ICC, while civil society tends to understand that the ICC is ultimately striving to help people on the ground. Governments feel that the ICC is anti-Africa - while civil society sees the ICC as pro-Africa, as it is attempting to help the African people. Though he presented this as a clear dichotomy, I wonder whether portions of civil society has a critical stance as well - which I imagine some NGOs in areas affected by the ICC’s work do.
Another fascinating point of discussion was the treatment of those convicted by the ICC — the “supervillains.” Since the case of Thomas Lubanga is the first case to take place at the ICC, there is no precedent as of yet regarding what is to be done with these supervillains after they are found guilty. The assumption is that these super-criminals will be imprisoned in European countries, since the legal structures in developing countries likely do not meet the necessary international standards. One controversial point was the rehabilitation of these so-called supervillains — if we rehabilitate regular child soldiers, why not these criminals as well? The answer was, of course, a laugh and a shake of the head - we can’t rehabilitate supervillains, because they are beyond that point. They are responsible for the conflict, while child soliders and other civilians are victims, caught in war without a choice.
The final point was the participation of victims in the proceedings. Victims do not testify - only witnesses do, at the ICC. Victims remain neutral third parties. But what is exciting is that the ICC is beginning to provide for the extensive participation of witnesses in the trial. Our presenter spoke about how by being involved intimately in the trials and seeing perpetrators being brought to justice has allowed victims to feel a genuine sense of connection to the Court’s work, and it gives them a feeling of contentment to see that something is being done to address the heinous crimes they have experienced. The victims feel validated not by monetary reparations but just by being able to take part in the proceedings and to see justice being done. The concern though is the safety of the witnesses, and the awareness amongst victims of their rights. He also mentioned something I’m very interested in — that the Court is working towards an innovative Victims Trust Fund. I think it’s absolutely vital that the ICC, in order to truly foster justice, must participate in the rehabilitation of victims and help them reintegrate into society. It’s important that the ICC get involved in the communities it is trying to assist, and directly begin helping the victims of crimes by providing them with more than a vague sense of justice - but a concrete sense that they are being cared for and assisted.
I learned so much from the CICC presentation and was very impressed by the breadth of the CICC’s work. I was fascinated by not only how much has been done, but how much there is left to be done. The work of the CICC is vital in ensuring that the Court is operating effectively and being accountable, especially in the light of so many recent controversial indictments by the ICC. There is so much the ICC can improve on, and I think the CICC has the power to make the Court stop and listen. That power is tremendous, and it needs to be used wisely - it is being used well, and I hope this critical approach to the ICC will continue on.
Related posts:
