Introduction
In the past years, the world recorded severe criminal cases, including genocide that left the majority of people dead. Such incidents caught international attention prompting the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The system was aimed at ending the impunity that was growing significantly across the globe. Since its formation, ICC has been phenomenal at discharging its duties and ensuring the perpetrators are subjected to effective the law. Even though most countries are yet to be part of the body, its functions are recognized. The ICC has remained relevant in promoting global justice despite shortfalls, including the time taken to obtain justice.
Background
The need to end the overwhelming aggression and other serious crimes prompted the international community to establish a permanent court system. Through the Rome Statute, an independent court known as ICC was created to facilitate the eradication of crimes that violates human rights. ICC is located in Hague, Netherlands, where most of its operations are undertaken. The ICC’s operations are significantly funded by member states and other volunteered governments across the globe. The ICC main aim is to fight and sentence countries as well as individuals that affects the international laws (“International Criminal Court,” n.d.). Even though the ICC was mainly focused on trying cases of a given time frame, in 2002, the court was approved by over 60 member states to hear and charge criminals. The member states have remained committed to adhering to the Rome Statute to ensure justice is served accordingly.
Generally, the ICC exercises its jurisdiction on member parties, especially if they engage in the crimes mentioned above or when the atrocities are committed within the respective countries. Based on the procedures of the ICC, there is no immunity to an individual, whether the head of state, elected Member of Parliament, or any other recognized personnel in the country. Each person involved in the crime must take responsibility, and the court is mandated to ensure justice is obtained (Hobbs, 2020). Furthermore, the ICC allows victims as well as the accused to participate in the hearing processes. For instance, victims have the capacity to act as witnesses and testify on the cases and further issue their concerns about the proceedings at every stage. In addition, based on the statute, the member states have established a trust fund that is used by the ICC justice court to compensate the people affected by criminal acts.
Arguments
Since the establishment of the ICC, the court system has acted as a warning to most people who might want to engage in international crimes. For instance, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has been experiencing cases of war crimes over the past years, however, the involvement of ICC made the offenders to reduce the atrocities (Blaisdell, 2022). Based on this aspect, the ICC has been able to guarantee and promote justice by subjecting various people who committed genocide and war crimes to imprisonment (International Criminal Court, 2022). For instance, the ICC has begun investigation on the current situation in Ukraine (Mulligan, 2022). The ICC does not exempt any individual or country from the trial and charges. People involved in the crimes face the rules, thus ensuring that justice is served effectively to the affected persons.
Furthermore, ICC allows victims to apply for reparations to enable them to indemnify their lost properties during the act of war crime. In most cases, in the event of war, various people have been deprived of their rights, and some of their properties are destroyed, leaving them helpless (Post, 2022). Since the justice system has the mandate to compensate the victims, the affected people feel relieved, making them receive justice. In addition, the procedures of allowing the victims to engage in the hearings facilitate justice for the victims. The technique empowers the affected persons, thus making them realize the aspect of justice. The compensation allows the individuals to retain their place within their respective society.
Similarly, the ICC has adopted the tendency of allowing its party members to undertake critical investigations concerning the violation of human rights. The practice has made the court extend its operations, thus making the potential offenders restrain from engaging in such crimes knowing that local law enforcement has the power to prosecute them. In other words, the ICC has given national courts power and hence is capable of trying individuals irrespective of their political influence in the country (Post, 2022). The mechanism has restored confidence in international laws across the globe.
In addition, most nations are more likely to have political influence in their court system. This aspect makes it challenging for the national judiciary to act effectively. Law enforcement may fail to prosecute specific individuals due to their ranks in the country. In such cases, ICC usually takes over and charges the respective persons to ensure justice for the victims (Da Silva, 2020, a). Some nations might have collapsed justice systems; thus, the intervention of the ICC promotes multinational justice. The approach has ensured the perpetrators are brought to the book irrespective of the status of their country or the power they have within the country.
Counter Argument
Despite the effective engagement of the ICC in prosecuting offenders, the institution relies on the national governments to present the accused. The practice makes it challenging for the system to offer immediate execution since most states delay their processes (Da Silva, 2020, b). Furthermore, based on the approach, some of the culprits form a strong relationship with the existing ruling authority; thus, they are not arrested for their crimes. Similarly, the offenders have the tendency to migrate to countries where ICC does not have jurisdiction. In such circumstances, the agency does not have the mandate to detain the respective person, delaying the justice process. In addition, the ICC is believed to be selective in its cases, making it demote the aspect of universal justice. For instance, African Union accused the organization of undermining cases involving African war crimes (Shilaho, 2018). Generally, a successful prosecution requires proper documentation of cases and preservation of evidence. This facet requires the police force; however, ICC does not have such a body, thus making it rely on national law enforcement units, which sometimes produce ineffective results.
Conclusion
Since the establishment of the ICC, the world has recorded a reduction in cases of genocide. The international body has managed to enforce international laws protecting its member state. Even though ICC has some criticism, the agency’s presence has facilitated a reduction in impunity. Following its commitment to work with national justice systems, most perpetrators are deterred from engaging in criminal acts since they can be easily prosecuted. Furthermore, its mechanism of compensating victims and allowing them to be part of witnesses has enhanced the aspect of justice. Therefore, ICC, to some extent, has improved international justice since its formation.
References
Blaisdell, M. (2022). ICC Intervention in the DRC (No. THESIS). University of Chicago. Web.
Da Silva, R. (2020b). Sherlock at the ICC? Regulating third-party investigations of international crimes in the Rome statute legal framework. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 18(1), 59-86. Web.
Da Silva, R. B. (2020a). Synergies between core and transnational crimes: An analysis from the perspective of the’Rome statute’. Melbourne Journal of International Law, 21(1), 1-44. Web.
Hobbs, P. (2020). The catalysing effect of the Rome Statute in Africa: Positive complementarity and self-referrals. In K. Ambos et al. (Eds.), Criminal Law Forum (Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 345-376). Springer Netherlands. Web.
International Criminal Court. (2022). Bosco Ntaganda transferred to a Belgian prison facility to serve sentence [Press Release]. Web.
International Criminal Court. (n.d.). Web.
Mulligan, S. P. (2022). The role of international tribunals in the response to the invasion of Ukraine. Congressional Research Service. Web.
Post, H. H. (2022). The state of the International Criminal Court, of Special Tribunals and of International Criminal Law: A concise review. Netherlands International Law Review, 1-22. Web.
Shilaho, W. K. (2018). The International Criminal Court and the African Union: Is the ICC a bulwark against impunity or an imperial Trojan horse? African Journal on Conflict Resolution, 18(1), 119-146. Web.