International Justice

CJ354 Endicott College

Will an International Corruption Court be Effective?

Whether the International Criminal Court is effective is debatable. There are always controversies over state sovereignty and power of Security Council. Also, prosecuting war criminals and perpetrators do not necessarily resolve intrinsic problems. So why don’t we take some time to think about an “International Corruption Court?” Typically, in countries where war crimes or genocide happen are, corruption prevails in the country. “History shows that one corrupt regime is usually followed by another,” and this is why “corrupt countries are often given no chance to build up bureaucracies” that cannot contain corruption. If we consider significant corruption as international crime and prosecute them, will it help developing countries to establish a healthy government? Needless to say, it will bring lots of controversies since prosecuting corruption could violate state sovereignty. I, however, thought the concept of “an International Corruption Court” has the potential to benefit countries suffering from a corrupted government, and it is worth thinking about it.

News Link (New York Times) – Click here


One response to “Will an International Corruption Court be Effective?

  1. lniederp February 14, 2011 at 11:39 pm

    This is a simplistic, albeit interesting complaint about the International Criminal Court. Interesting in the respect that the complaint drives at what the creators and proponents of the court consider to be one of its strongest characteristic- that the court is proactive not a reactive institution of transitional justice. The permanence of the ICC and, specifically, its active investigatory work of the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) and the Jurisdiction, Complementary, and Cooperation Division (JCCD) resemble an institution that can be active in pursuing regimes that have taken steps to commit genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes – or at the very least, prosecute regimes that are committing such crimes but do so before the crimes evolve to a larger scale. In other words, to prosecute “corrupt regimes”.

    The complaint in the above post insinuates that they court has not been proactive in each approach to justice. This complaint is not entirely invalid, as the court has been a reactionary institution. But I think we are failing to note that the institutions, with in the ICC, to proactively investigate “corrupt regimes” exist. The problem lies within the efficacy of these institutions. But we may be requesting too much of this court too quickly, as any Umass student who’s taken Goldman’s Constitutional Law class knows, the road of the U.S Supreme Court to the legitimacy it holds today, was a long and arduous one. A similar road must be taken for the ICC, although its challenges are now on the Global, not national, scale.

    The question that remains is, can the patience of the victims withstand the length of this ICC’s, “road to legitimacy”? … or should it even have to try?

%d bloggers like this: