[Peace-discuss] Grassroots Interview with ICC Chief Prosecutor (fwd)

[patton paul]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 12:31:33 -0700
From: "Eli Pariser, MoveOn.org" <moveon-help at list.moveon.org>
To: Paul Patton <ppatton at uiuc.edu>
Subject: Grassroots Interview with ICC Chief Prosecutor

GRASSROOTS INTERVIEW WITH LUIS MORENO-OCAMPO

MoveOn Bulletin addendum
Thursday, August 21, 2003
Noah T. Winer, Editor
noah.winer at moveon.org

Subscribe online at:
http://www.moveon.org/moveonbulletin/

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking here:
http://moveon.org/s?i=1597-483317-AbUdeQ9WR_PUh_YnxbT2Rg

------------------------------

GRASSROOTS INTERVIEW
A delay prevented us from including the Grassroots Interview in the
MoveOn Bulletin earlier this week. We hope you'll excuse the second
mailing.

Three weeks ago, our bulletin on the International Criminal Court
offered MoveOn members an opportunity to interview the Court's first
Chief Prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo. Today, we bring you the
Prosecutor's responses to five of the top-ranked questions.

Mr. Moreno-Ocampo was elected as the Chief Prosecutor by the Court's
ratifying countries in April. He has a long history of prosecuting
criminal and human rights cases including the extradition of a former
Nazi officer from his home country of Argentina, political bribery,
journalists' protection, and the military junta that seized power
during Argentina's "dirty war." The Prosecutor has also been a
visiting professor at Stanford and Harvard Universities in the United
States.

Here's an excerpt from Mr. Moreno-Ocampo's responses:

"National States alone cannot offer individuals the protection they
need and deserve, as the attacks on the Twin Towers in Manhattan show.
The protection offered by national States is not sufficient to
guarantee the life and freedom of their citizens if the international
community, too, is not based on the rule of law. Only the existence of
mechanisms for the protection of all persons in all countries can
bring lasting, comprehensive peace."

His full answers to the questions you selected are below. Thank you to
the Prosecutor and all the members who posed questions.

------------------------------

Question 1: Could the ICC have been an alternative to bringing Saddam
Hussein -- or, for that matter, Osama bin Laden -- to justice? Do you
imagine that -- with or without U.S. approval -- the ICC can become a
deterrent for the kinds of pre-emptive wars we've seen since 9/11?
-- Elizabeth Swanson Goldberg, Forestdale, Massachusetts

The International Criminal Court has no jurisdiction over crimes
committed by Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden before the entry into
force of the Rome Statute on 1 July 2002. The ICC may have
jurisdiction over crimes committed by them on or after that date,
provided that certain very clear requirements are met.

A war crime, a crime against humanity or genocide must have been
committed either on the territory of a State Party to the Rome Statute
or by a national of a State Party for the ICC to have jurisdiction.

There are currently 91 States Parties to the Statute, but Iraq is not
one of them. Thus, crimes committed by Saddam Hussein in Iraq would
not fall within our jurisdiction.  Even if Iraq became a State Party,
the Court has no retroactive jurisdiction, so some of the atrocities
allegedly committed by Saddam Hussein prior to 1 July 2002, such as
the gassing of the Kurds in Halabja in 1988, cannot be investigated by
the Office of the Prosecutor. The ICC is only designed to respond to
atrocities that occur after a State ratifies the Statute.

Although there is no agreed legal definition of terrorism under
international law, it is possible that certain terrorist acts
allegedly committed by Osama bin Laden could be qualified as either
war crimes, crimes against humanity or even genocide, if the complex
legal criteria defining these crimes are fulfilled. If this were the
case, and provided the acts in question occurred on the territory of a
State Party, or were carried out by the national of a State Party, and
occurred on or after 1 July 2002, then there could be possible ICC
jurisdiction.

Despite all of the above criteria, if a State is genuinely willing and
able to investigate and prosecute a crime itself, then the ICC has no
authority to act.  This is because the Court is complementary to
national justice systems.  It is only when a crime within the
jurisdiction of the Court has occurred, and national States are
unwilling or unable genuinely to act, that the ICC will be able to
assume jurisdiction.

For thousands of years the world has used war as an instrument of
conflict resolution. Peace is a modern invention. Since weapons of
mass destruction have unlimited effects, the ICC and other
institutions are key for the creation of a world in which violence is
controlled.

The Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over alleged crimes of
aggression until the crime is defined and the conditions for the
exercise of jurisdiction are set out. The Assembly of States Parties
of the ICC may adopt such a provision at a review conference to be
convened in 2009. Thus, pre-emptive wars are not, at this time, within
the jurisdiction of the Court.


Question 2: For those of us less informed about the workings of
political bodies, would you please explain in simple terms the
necessity of a second international organization independent of the
United Nations? Does the UN or its Security Council not already have
the jurisdiction to try war and human rights criminals? Is there some
clear advantage to functioning separately?
-- Irene Wells, Mt. Vernon, Ohio

The ICC was born from discussions that took place in the framework of
the United Nations. However, some UN member States do not support the
Court, and thus we are an independent organisation. A fundamental
difference between the UN and the ICC is that some UN member States
have the power to veto Security Council resolutions. This alone sets
the two institutions apart. The ICC acts independently and has an
internal system of checks and balances. All of this accounts for the
lack of support for the ICC of some States and to their unwillingness
to ratify the Rome Statute.

The Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda were created by the
UN Security Council exercising power under Chapter VII of the UN
Charter.  These Tribunals were created because the Security Council
had determined that the situations in these countries constituted a
threat to or breach of international peace and security. Their
creation was thus a reaction to pre-existing situations. They can only
prosecute crimes which occurred within those countries, and do not
have the potential global reach of the ICC.

The ICC is intended to exist prior to any future atrocities occurring,
so that those who choose to commit these atrocities will have
knowledge before they act that there is an established Court ready to
investigate and prosecute them.  This means that the ICC has a
significant global power of deterrence which previously did not exist.
It would not have been legally possible for the Security Council to
create a prospective court for situations which had not yet occurred -
particularly so when at the moment of creation, there has been no
threat to or breach of international peace and security.

Furthermore, to create a truly global Court, global participation and
consensus was required.  The ICC was created not by a resolution of
the Security Council, but by an extensive multi-lateral treaty
negotiation which concluded in Rome in 1998.  160 countries attended
the negotiations, with 120 finally voting to adopt the Rome Statute.
This later increased to 139.  Only 7 countries voted against it
(including the US).  Of this 139, the number of States who have become
full participants of the ICC system is currently 91.  This means that,
although it does have a close relationship with the UN, the ICC is an
independent treaty body.  The General Assembly sponsored the Rome
Conference, and the Security Council can trigger the jurisdiction of
the Court by referring a situation for investigation to the
Prosecutor, thus avoiding the delays and costs involved in creating ad
hoc tribunals as a reaction to atrocities.


Question 3: How can we, who believe that the US should be a
participating member of the world community, convince those who fear
that the ICC would be misused for political interests? What arguments
can we make?
-- Andrew Hummel-Schluger, Brier, Washington

In order to appease those who feared that the ICC would suffer from
politically motivated bias, the putting in place of a rigorous system
of selection of its officers and a system of checks and balances was
necessary. These systems ensure that the Court is a serious
institution, and one which possesses high technical quality. Despite
the assurances offered by these safeguards, individuals in some
countries are disinclined to support a criminal court that is
independent, because it limits the actions of certain States. The
judicial system, as we know it, developed within national States in
which the government controls the police and the army, and also
designates the judges. In a world without a central government,
without police and an army, a system of justice which is independent
is a novelty and may give rise to fears and uncertainty.

Despite not currently being a supporter of the ICC, the US was an
active participant of the Rome Conference in 1998 and played a major
role in the inclusion in the Statute of a comprehensive series of
safeguards to protect national sovereignty and to prevent the ICC from
ever being used for frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions.
As such, the Rome Statute contains a comprehensive system of checks
and balances.  Below is a selection of some of the most prominent
safeguards.

Any investigation initiated by the Prosecutor himself will require the
authorisation of a Pre-Trial Chamber of three judges who must examine
the evidence the Prosecutor has gathered and be satisfied that there
is a "reasonable basis to proceed".  Further, any arrest warrant
issued must also be confirmed by this Pre-Trial Chamber.

An accused person, and any involved countries, will have the
opportunity to challenge the indictment during confirmation hearings
before the Pre-Trial Chamber.

Also, the system of complementarity protects against politically
motivated prosecutions because if States are willing and able to
genuinely investigate and prosecute a matter themselves, they need
never fear ICC involvement.  The need for the national proceedings to
be genuine is crucial, though, as national action cannot be used to
"shield" someone from ICC jurisdiction, and if done so, the ICC will
have the power to act.

The Prosecutor himself and all the judges went through a rigorous
process of scrutiny prior to their election as officials of the Court.
There are strict criteria for their selection which includes they be
experts whose reputation, moral character and independence are beyond
reproach.  The judges are nominated by the States Parties and must be
eligible for the highest judicial office in their home country.
Whilst in office the Prosecutor and judges are prohibited from
engaging in any activity which may threaten their independence, and,
if they do so, they can be removed.  Furthermore, if they abuse their
power while in office, they can be impeached.

It must be emphasised that the crimes the ICC is empowered to
prosecute are the most serious, horrendous and egregious crimes known
to humanity and prior to the Rome Statute, the US was fully committed
to preventing and punishing the commission of these crimes.  The US
does not operate a policy of committing these crimes, and as such
should not fear prosecution of its nationals, particularly when all
the safeguards are taken into consideration.


Question 4: Some have argued that weak, poor countries should actually
oppose the Court alongside the U.S. because it's unlikely the ICC will
be able to pursue cases against the leaders of rich, powerful states
on whose political support and deep pockets it will depend. In effect,
the Court would not be able to avoid propagating a double standard of
"justice" that reflects that power dynamics of global politics. Do you
find this argument at all valid?
-- Jeremie Smith, Asheville, North Carolina

 National States alone cannot offer individuals the protection they
need and deserve, as the attacks on the Twin Towers in Manhattan show.
The protection offered by national States is not sufficient to
guarantee the life and freedom of their citizens if the international
community, too, is not based on the rule of law. Only the existence of
mechanisms for the protection of all persons in all countries can
bring lasting, comprehensive peace.

 The life and freedom of individuals in any country can be threatened
by internal and external elements. Internally, individuals may be
attacked by groups over which the State has no control. This is what
happens in countries in which the rule of law has broken down. The
events that took place in Rwanda in the 1990s are an example of this
type of threats. This is the kind of situation that can be repeated.
It is taking place in Ituri, Democratic Republic of Congo.

 A second set of threats is external, and consists of attacks coming
from other States. In order to protect individuals from this type of
threat, it is necessary for States to reach consensus regarding the
definition of the crime of aggression. However, there is also scope
for some of the crimes committed in this context to come within the
purview of the ICC, if they constitute war crimes, crimes against
humanity or genocide.


Question 5: Given your comments on the role of corporations and the
international banking system in the Democratic Republic of Congo,
might the ICC be a mechanism to deal indirectly with businesses
implicated in massive human rights violations, even if international
business does not directly fall under the ICC's jurisdiction? Do you
think that the issue of corporate responsibility might be an issue
that should be raised at the ICC's review scheduled for 2009?
-- Andrea Muehlebach, Chicago, Illinois

 The issue of corporate responsibility is central to our vision of
ensuring the observance of the law in the long term. We need to align
values, economic interests and decisions of national States.
Corporations have to be aware of the fact that for there to be
markets, there needs to be peace, and that they, too, can contribute
to its construction.

 The ICC has no jurisdiction over crimes such as money laundering and
illegal exploitation of natural resources, both of which would be
fuelling the war in Ituri according to credible reports. The Office of
the Prosecutor is convinced that investigations and prosecutions into
the financial aspects of the crimes being committed in Ituri will
surely contribute to the winding down of the war in the country.

 ------------------------------

ABOUT THE MOVEON BULLETIN AND MOVEON.ORG
The MoveOn Bulletin is a free weekly collection of links, which
represent a broad range of views on important political issues. These
links aren't meant to represent the position of MoveOn.org. The full
text of the MoveOn Bulletin is online at http://www.moveon.org/
moveonbulletin/; you can subscribe to it at that address.

MoveOn.org is an issue-oriented, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization
that gives people a voice in shaping the laws that affect their lives.
MoveOn.org engages people in the civic process, using the Internet to
democratically determine a non-partisan agenda, raising public
awareness of pressing issues, and coordinating grassroots advocacy
campaigns to encourage sound public policies. You can help decide the
direction of MoveOn.org by participating in the discussion forum at:
http://www.actionforum.com/forum/index.html?forum_id=223

This is a message from MoveOn.org. To remove yourself (Paul Patton) from this list, please visit our subscription
management page at:
http://moveon.org/s?i=1597-483317-AbUdeQ9WR_PUh_YnxbT2Rg