THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

Established in 2002 the International Criminal Court has existed for pursuing individuals suspected of having committed serious war crimes. But, now, support for its authority is dwindling.

Intro: Born of a noble ideal, the ICC would appear to be facing serious difficulties

The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established in 2002. This became the first permanent institution to bring to book the genocidal warlords who would have previously evaded justice. Its creation was heralded as a bastion for those seeking redress for the most heinous of crimes against humanity.

From the outset, however, the ICC was beset with difficulties. Principle among them has been the refusal of many countries, including the United States and China, to recognise its legitimacy and jurisdiction. Notwithstanding, more than 120 states did sign up; and to date the ICC has issued 39 indictments and concluded proceedings against 17 individuals, of whom three have been convicted. Preliminary investigations are taking place over 10 other conflict situations.

Within the last few days Russia has withdrawn its support for the Rome Treaty that underpins the court’s writ. It has done so in protest at an investigation into alleged atrocities it is said to have committed in Georgia. Moscow’s move follows recent decisions by South Africa, Gambia and Burundi to pull out accusing the court of bias and prejudice in Africa. Russia’s decision could prove to be the high watermark for the ICC as its authority erodes and declines further. Born of a noble ideal, the ICC would appear to be facing serious difficulties. But equally, with Russia cranking up for further military action in Syria, its action cannot be an excuse to carry out war crimes there.

With support for the ICC crumbling, the rationale for pursuing British soldiers for spurious allegations of abuse committed in Iraq is also diminishing. The Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT) was set up ostensibly to avoid an investigation by the ICC, which would step in only if there were clear evidence of systemic abuse. This has not materialised. Hunting war criminals for the barbarity they have left in their wake is one thing; pursuing soldiers for carrying out their duty based on unfounded and malicious allegations is quite another.