International Justice

CJ354 Endicott College

International Intervention

This article relates to what we were talking about yesterday in class, specifically, how international efforts should be used to curtail genocide and whether the ICC has the right to step in to prosecute individuals if the international community doesn’t attempt to end the genocide. In this case, the International Organization for Migration has stepped up and rescued 1,200 of the 8,000+ migrants in Misrata who have fled due to Gadhafi’s regime. It’s certainly helpful to have the international community rescue the migrants who are in need but I don’t think it’s a necessary step in order to prosecute the leaders. Is it really the international community’s duty to help out migrants from a nation where the individuals are being oppressed? Some would say that the United States was saving the Iraqi individuals from the oppression of Saddam Hussein and look how the international community viewed that. Eventually the international community may have to step in and end the regime (i.e. in world war II or in Iraq and Afghanistan), but we shouldn’t be obligated to save a nations citizens in order to prosecute them later. I think that being tried by the ICC requires no effort to curtail the genocide, simply put, if the ICC thinks that a leader has acted in a way that he or she is guilty of war crimes then the ICC has the power to prosecute them regardless of how much or how little international involvement there was in attempting to limit the perpetrators atrocities.


4 responses to “International Intervention

  1. myongha April 17, 2011 at 7:50 pm

    If the international community is not willing to get involved in international crimes, the ICC should step in to end the atrocities. One might argue that the ICC’s intervention violates a state’s sovereignty, yet if the international community has no intention to end the international crimes, the ICC is responsible to end the crimes. The ICC would have the right to intervene, if the crime was committed by a member of the ICC. Even if a perpetrator is from a state that did not ratify the Rome Statute, the ICC would still prosecute the person with the UN Security Council’s referral.

  2. Alana Tiemessen April 17, 2011 at 9:04 pm

    Interesting comments. This is a way to link “The Responsibility to Protect” to international justice by posing the question of whether the intl community has a responsibility to prosecute. Certainly the Rome Statute frames the responsibility that way.

  3. cbilgrie April 17, 2011 at 9:28 pm

    I don’t think I completely agree with that view. While it’s true that the ICC has the right to intervene, they have no responsibility to. Furthermore, while the Rome statute allows the ICC to intervene, there is no real enforcement of International law. The U.S. has not ratified the statue, and as such the ICC has no right to take United States matters into their own hands. I realize the permanent seat on the Security Council makes this a mute point, but it would be foolish of the ICC to start an argument with the U.S. if they wanted someone extradited to the Hague. Nobody want’s to start a war or get into a legal battle with the U.S. I feel like this point is something that needs to be taken into consideration by the ICC (which they don’t really want to admit), that you can make as much international law as you want, but without the military force to back it it becomes useless. The ICC says they don’t need the military force of the United States to make themselves legitimate but its hard to actually enforce laws (from a practical perspective), without the U.S.’s backing. The world’s most powerful country essentially becomes just that, powerful, and without their support you lack legitimacy and the ability to go into nations when you don’t have enough backing.

  4. chrisumass April 19, 2011 at 6:33 pm

    I would agree with myongha that the ICC has a responsibility to end severe crimes. Just by it existing and taking on cases of such a magnitude demonstrates that it is their responsibility to help the international community by going after these criminals. I would say that the ICC would have to be careful not to overstep itself, since if it started messing around in the affairs of larger more powerful nations, a backlash would occur. However usually the ICC goes after perpetrators who commit human rights violations in countries that are unstable. In order to ensure stability in these regions I would admit that the ICC should persue justice and take the responsibility of stopping human rights violations and war crimes.

%d bloggers like this: