International Criminal Court

The International Criminal Court opened its doors on July 1, 2002, ready to receive complaints about gross abuses of human rights anywhere in the world.

Created by the Rome Treaty of 1998 and over objections from the United States, the global court has jurisdiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide committed after July 1, 2002. The court, which is based in The Hague, is authorized to try only individuals, not nations or armies. The 1998 Rome treaty establishing the International Criminal Court removed head-of-state immunity for atrocity crimes.

The court is independent of the United Nations and was established as a permanent institution. It is intended to replace ad-hoc tribunals, like the one that dealt with Nazi crimes in Nuremberg or the United Nations courts that have dealt with Rwanda and Yugoslavia.

In the debate over the creation of such a tribunal, the United States — the Bush administration and some in Congress — fought to curb its reach. They were particularly opposed to the possibility that American soldiers might be subjected to the court's jurisdiction, and American officials feared that the threat of trial could undermine the United Nations peacekeeping apparatus.

But the United States' European allies and NATO partners hailed the court as a pivotal development in international law and human rights. Human rights groups and European leaders said they thought Washington was motivated by the fear that American policymakers, not just soldiers, would be held accountable before the court.

Britain, France and Germany help to finance the court and contribute staff members. The European Union covers most of the court’s budget, and the Netherlands pledged 10 years of free rent in The Hague as well as $70 million for starting costs.

The court's creation was speedy, by the standards of international organizations: it received the required ratification of 60 nations barely four years after the Rome Treaty instead of in the expected 10 to 20 years.

Some legal experts have complained that the threshold for getting a case to the global criminal court is so high that it impedes international justice. For example, the prosecutor may investigate a case only when a national court is unable or unwilling to do so. The prosecutor may do so only after convincing a three-judge panel that an existing national investigation or trial was a sham or that local courts shielded an individual from criminal responsibility.

The definition of war crimes is very specific, stipulating that large-scale crimes must be committed as part of a government plan or policy in order to come under the court's mandate. This, legal experts say, would rule out a trial of any local commander or individual pilot who bombed or killed on a personal whim.

At the insistence of the United States, some war crimes were defined in even more strict terms than in the Geneva Conventions. For instance, the loss of civilian lives or damage to property needs to be ''clearly excessive'' compared with the military advantage of an attack.

Furthermore, before a prosecutor can begin an investigation, the court has to notify the suspect's government. National authorities will then have six months to conduct their own investigation to ward off the international prosecutor.

[Source : topics.nytimes.com]