The International Criminal Court (ICC) is an institution that sits uneasily at the dangerous intersection of law and politics, both international and domestic. Created by a treaty, the Rome Statute, opened for signature in 1998 and commencing operation after ratification by sixty state signatories in July 2002, the Court has as the subject matter of its jurisdiction the most horrible acts of violence that political conflict can produce: genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity. The notion that atrocities on such a scale can be brought to heel or ameliorated by the law acting across national borders necessarily entails the Court inserting itself into some of the worst and most vexing conflicts the world sees.
The involvement of the Court may take place for the purpose of rendering judgments after a conflict has ended, as in the case of the Nuremberg tribunals following World War II, or once conflict has substantially abated, as in the ICC’s ongoing proceedings in the Central African Republic. Criminal proceedings such as these are controversial enough when minds are still reeling from the horror of what has just happened. The Court’s involvement need not be retrospective, however; the conflict or crisis may be going full tilt when the Court becomes involved, adding yet more layers of complexity and controversy to its actions. For example, the ICC has issued a warrant for the arrest of the president of Sudan, Omar al Bashir, charging him with orchestrating the atrocities in Sudan’s Darfur region, at a time when the crisis there is very much unfolding in real time and stubbornly eluding the efforts of would-be peacemakers. Continue reading →