The Washington Times: It’s an unusual trial. The court itself is in the docket, and the defense isn’t going well.
The Hague-based International Criminal Court, launched at the turn of the century as an ambitious effort to bring international justice to states around the world, has been buffeted by a series of blows, including rising criticism from major powers and high-profile defections from smaller countries that say the ICC is biased against them.
The exits of Burundi, Gambia and South Africa in October and the threatened pullouts of Kenya, Namibia, Uganda and others from the court’s jurisdiction may reflect less a principled stand over fairness than a fear of prosecution. But international legal scholars say the willingness of member states to take the drastic step of leaving altogether is a major blow to the court’s legitimacy and long-term health.
“It is damaging to the court’s reputation if states withdraw,” said Andreas Schuller, a lawyer specializing in international crimes at the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights in Berlin. “If you look into the reasons why behind their decisions, I think it’s most worrying for the people in those states that their leadership is withdrawing.”
In a blog posting for ForeignPolicy.com, Indiana University international affairs professor David Bosco wondered aloud whether the court was “crumbling before our eyes.” Each defection, he said, reduces the court’s ability to take on cases down the line.
“Further departures would diminish the court’s legitimacy and limit the scope for future investigations,” he wrote. “Absent a resolution from the U.N. Security Council — tough to get in the best of times — the court can only investigate when states give it jurisdiction over their territory and nationals. Exiting states aren’t merely expressing displeasure; they are shrinking the court’s room to operate and undermining the court’s claim to be a bulwark against atrocities.”
