22 Apr The Lebanon Special Tribunal – A New Type of International Criminal Tribunal
The U.N. and Lebanon are close to a final agreement on the establishment of a what would be a very unique international criminal tribunal to prosecute those responsible for the assassination of former Lebanese premier Rafik Hariri, AFP reports. In fact, it is Lebanon that is pressing the U.N. to act quickly (rather than the other way around).
As the BBC observes, the special court, if established, would be limited to the prosecution and investigation of a very narrow set of crimes related to the assassination of Harari. This makes the court unique because most international criminal tribunals are authorized to prosecute very serious international crimes, such as genocide, and not the assassination of a single person (however important he might have been).
In theory, there should be no international law objection to the creation of such a tribunal, particularly since the state with most obvious claim of jurisdiction, Lebanon, is willing to consent to the creation of such a court. Of course, the tricky question involves Syria’s legal obligation (if any) to cooperate with the new tribunal. Presumably, Syria could be harboring the Harari assassins. But would it have to turn them over? Maybe, but not necessarily. I’ll have to think about this some more, but it is not obvious to me that the U.N. Security Council has the authority to require Syria to cooperate with an international tribunal investigating crimes that occurred in a third country. But maybe they do. In any case, it looks like we are all going to find out pretty soon.
Julian,
Yes, the Security Council does undoubtedly have the authority to require Syria to cooperate with the Hariri Tribunal, if it passes a resolution under Chapter VII of the Charter, as it did with the ICTY or the ICTR, with whom all member states of the UN have a duty to cooperate (including the US, or Argentina, or Germany). The fact that the country in question is not the one where the crimes were committed is irrelevant – Serbia for example must cooperate with the ICTY even (or particularly) for crimes committed in Bosnia or Croatia.
Regards,
Marko Milanovic
If Hariri’s assassination is described as a ‘terrorist act,’ despite the absence of consensual definition of terrorism, then perhaps this is what permits it to be described as something on the order of a ‘very serious international crime’ given the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons.
Perhaps Marko, Kevin, or Julian (or ?) can tell me if I’m in the ballpark here.
I would also like to know if anyone has an opinion on whether or not the fact that both Lebanon and Syria are members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference and thus parties to its Convention on Combating Terrorism will make any difference to Syria’s stance on cooperating with the Tribunal. Even assuming a Security Council resolution under Chapter VII of the Charter, a different but perhaps in some respects more persuasive authority might thus be called upon here by way of prompting Syria’s cooperation (hence it could in some measure ‘save face’). Again, any thoughts from anyone?
Patrick,
I don’t think there is any problem in saying that the assassination of Hariri qualifies as a terrorist act, nor that any involvement of Syria in the assassination would be a serious violation of its international legal obligations.
However, the UN SC still must pass a Chapter VII resolution in order to create a legal obligation for Syria to cooperate with the new Tribunal, and it can do so if it regards the Hariri assassination as a threat to international peace and security (as it already has).
Regards,
Marko Milanovic
And hence my point that we might minimize the significance of the Tribunal’s ‘uniqueness’ if we concede that the assassination of Harari nonetheless comes under the heading of a ‘very serious international crime.’
And given Syria’s anxiety about the Bush administration’s desire to see a ‘regime change’ in Syria, I was simply wondering if there might be a means short of the (implicit) threat of Security Council sanctions whereby the international community could prompt Syria to work with the new Tribunal (hence the reference to the Convention of the Islamic Conference).