Effectiveness of International Courts and Tribunals Flashcards
what are tribunals? what are international courts?
UN tribunals are organisations set up to prosecute individuals in specific states for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide
the International Criminal Court (ICC) is the permanent body that prosecutes individuals for these same crimes
examine the effectiveness of both the international courts and tribunals in protecting human rights
some countries are not bound by the full requirements of the court
undermined by the criticism that they are biased
depends on the cooperation of the nation states involved
successes of these courts suggests that they are effective
some countries are not bound by the full requirements of the court
one of the main issues relating to international courts and tribunals which limits their effectiveness in protecting human rights is that some countries are not bound by the full requirements of the court, including China, the USA, India and Israel
this severely limits the ability of such institutions to protect human rights as it restricts their jurisdiction and how much action they can realistically take after humanitarian catastrophes and other issues of abuse by individuals or governments take place
for example, China is recognised for having a relatively poor human rights record
in 1989, the Tiananmen Square Massacre took place in which troops fired at student-led demonstrators and the number of casualties was internally estimated by the Chinese government to be around 10,000
more recently, China has come under huge pressure and criticism due to its treatment and persecution of Uyghur Muslims
in 2018, a UN committee heard that up to 1 million Muslims were being detained in internment camps and forced to undergo ‘re-education’ programmes
however, China is one of the countries not fully bound by the ICC, meaning that many of such human rights abuses may be essentially ignored and institutions like the ICC and UN tribunals are rendered unable to act
as such countries, known for having poor records regarding the treatment of their citizens, are not bound by the courts, it severely limits the effectiveness of these courts in protecting human rights
undermined by the criticism that they are biased
furthermore, the ICC faced another huge blow in 2016 when South Africa, Burundi and Gambia declared their decision to withdraw from the Rome Statute and therefore the ICC
there are fears that other African countries may follow, largely because there is the perception that the ICC and UN tribunals are biased against Africans seeing as most trials and prosecutions have been of Africans and arrest warrants have only ever been issued against Africans
according to countries like Burundi and Gambia, this makes the ICC look like a colonial organisation and this criticism limits its power and influence, and since other African countries may also leave the jurisdiction of the ICC, this issue has the potential to severely limit the ICC’s ability to protect and uphold human rights
UN tribunals are also often criticised for being based upon Western, liberal values and since they tend to be focused on developing or transitioning states, giving the impression that these countries are seen by the West as ‘backward’ and are unfairly focused on, especially since there have been many alleged human rights abuses perpetrated by the West, such as the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, waterboarding and covert rendition by the US
with so many countries either refusing to sign up to the courts in the first place or proceeding to withdraw, the ICC and UN tribunals cannot be said to provide truly international justice, only providing limited and partial justice
depends on the cooperation of the nation states involved
moreover, the ability of international courts and tribunals to protect human rights depends heavily on the cooperation of nation-states involved
both organisations depend on states to turn over suspects and help in the information gathering process in order for trials to be as quick and efficient as possible
unfortunately, this is not always the case
there have been numerous cases when the prosecutor has the evidence needed, an indictment has been issued but a trial has not followed because the indicted individual has not been turned over for trial, meaning that the suspect remains at large as an international criminal and does not have to answer their charges
this has been the case with Omar al-Bashir, former president of Sudan, who is charged with crimes against humanity and genocide in Darfur, in which up to 300,000 people were killed and 2.7 million driven from their homes by militias he backed from 2003
Sudan’s military government has said it will not extradite al-Bashir to face his charges, claiming it would be “an ugly mark on Sudan”
this lack of cooperation is one of the biggest issues facing both the ICC and UN special tribunals, limiting their effectiveness in protecting human rights as neither can force a state into complying with them, even if that state has agreed to fall under the jurisdiction of the courts
successes of these courts suggests that they are effective
however, international courts and UN tribunals can be said to be effective in protecting human rights despite their limitations, evidenced by their numerous successes in prosecuting individuals who have infringed upon human rights
for example, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) convicted and sentenced Radislav Krstic, a Bosnian-Serb army officer, who was the first person at the tribunal to be found guilty of genocide – he was found guilty of the 1995 Srebrenica massacre of 7500 Muslim men and boys
the ICTY also convicted Radovan Karadzic, the Bosnian-Serb political leader, who was found guilty of genocide and war crimes in 2016 and sentenced to 40 years in prison
it also convicted Ratko Mladic, the Bosnian-Serb military commander, who was recently on trial in The Hague, charged with 2 counts of genocide and 9 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity
in 2017, he was convicted of 10 of the 11 charges and sentenced to life imprisonment
in doing so, the courts act as a deterrent and show that nobody is above the law
heads of state, military commanders and political leaders are all vulnerable and will be held to account for the crimes they commit
therefore, these courts may be effective in protecting human rights
