Speaking of ICC Membership…

Speaking of ICC Membership…

Two interesting articles today about countries that want the ICC to get involved in their internal problems.  First, the Indian government apparently wants the Court to prosecute Pakistanis who are responsible for masterminding terrorist attacks, including the recent attack in Mumbai: “[h]ighly placed government sources have told TIMES NOW that decks are being cleared by New Delhi to get the International Criminal Court (ICC) to sanction individual entities in Pakistan that are on India’s most wanted list. The option is being considered by the Indian government as part of diplomatic efforts to get Pakistan to cough up terrorists on India’s ‘most wanted’ list.”

Second, the Iraqi government seems to want the Court to prosecute the MKO, an Iranian terrorist organization currently plying its trade in Iraq: “[t]he Iraqi top judge for campaign against terrorism in the country Jomeh Abdul Davoud has suggested the Hague-based International Criminal Court (ICC) file an appeal against members of the Mojahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) to review the terrorist measures of the group. ‘There is a long way to go to fight against terrorism and all nations and countries should become unified for the goal’, he said in a meeting with families of MKO victims.”

Worthy suggestions, both.  To which I would offer one of my own: if you want the ICC to get involved, ratify the Rome Statute.  That makes the process much easier.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Foreign Relations Law, International Criminal Law, Middle East, Organizations
Notify of
Charles Gittings

Well here’s a question for you Kevin:

Does the ICC have jurisdiction over the various war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the Bush administration since 2001?

Charles Gittings

So I guess — in theory — the United States itself could also accept ad hoc jurisdiction and / or “un-unsign” and ratify retroactively?

Oh, and what about Britain, Poland, Morocco, Thailand, Eygpt, Syria, and all the other countries that aided and abetted the kidnappings, unlawful detentions, and torture?

I actually don’t worry about this much. There is ample US jurisdiction under the US Code for most of their crimes, including an indirect approach to prosecuting them for the war of aggression in Iraq. In any case, the IMT Charter retains full force: they can be prosecuted for everything by a lawfully constituted military commission. My view is that they should be prosecuted to the hilt under domestic law, then tried for crimes against peace by military commission, and then turned over to any foreign nation that wants to bring further charges.