Why the ICC Should Operate Within Peace Processes

| March 2012
Facebook Twitter Email
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Is it ethical for the prosecutor at the International Criminal Court (ICC) to consider political factors, such as peace processes, in selecting situations to investigate or cases to prosecute? During the early years of the court, a number of documents and statements from the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) suggested that there were occasions when it was. Two OTP policy papers issued in 2003 recommended that the prosecutor assess “all circumstances prevailing in the country or region concerned, including the nature and stage of the conflict and any intervention by the international community,” and whether prosecution might “exacerbate or otherwise destabilize a conflict situation.” In the same spirit, the ICC’s chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, referred to his decision-making as a “dialogue between many actors” with a “strategic dimension . . . [that] involves all stakeholders.” This language suggested a process of consultation and coordination with local and international actors involved in conflict resolution to adapt international criminal justice to on-the-ground political realities.

Today, Moreno-Ocampo denies that he is party to any peace negotiations. While he promises to work constructively with other actors involved in conflict resolution, he construes his legal mandate as independent of all political considerations. This means that the ICC is part of a transitional process only in the sense that prosecution of those most responsible for criminal violence is necessary for a lasting peace, and this is a binding legal obligation with which other actors must comply, not something that can be adjusted to their needs.

This vision of “law above politics” is based on the cosmopolitan values that animate the anti-impunity movement—the coalition of nongovernmental organizations and international lawyers that was instrumental in the court’s creation. It assumes that there are certain wartime atrocities or human rights abuses that are so corrosive of the common bonds that unite all peoples that such practices should be removed from the realm of normal politics and treated as international crimes. As a result, for the ICC and its state parties, ensuring prosecution of those most responsible for these crimes is a duty that should not be compromised by political factors, including peace processes. This latter position is informed by what Judith Shklar calls “legalism,” which envisions a just world order based on the globalization of law and which disparages politics as a defect to be eradicated if that ideal is to be realized. Hence, one of the achievements of the anti-impunity movement was the establishment of an independent prosecutor who could investigate situations on his or her own initiative rather than being dependent on the directives of states. As Moreno-Ocampo noted, this independence “ensures the requirement of justice will prevail over any political decision.”

To read or purchase the full text of this article, click here.

Facebook Twitter Email

Category: Essay, Global Governance, International Law and Human Rights, Issue 26.1, Roundtable: The Political Ethics of the International Criminal Court

Comments are closed.