Dream come true

By Soha Abdelaty
The first world-wide initiative towards a permanent international court for trying war crimes, the much vaunted International Criminal Court (ICC) moved nobly forward on 1 January into the next stage of a long journey towards international justice.
138 countries, including Egypt, signed the ICC charter before a 31 December deadline. Now that the deadline has expired, countries which lagged behind on the initiative will be excluded from the preparations and administration of setting up the ICC.
"Egypt signed the ICC charter on 26 December after the government had adequate time to study the provisions of the treaty and determine how they can be adapted to apply to the Egyptian judiciary," commented assistant foreign minister, Soliman Awad. This late signing, Awad explains, does not undermine Egypt's firm dedication to the principles of the ICC. "Rather the opposite; Egypt has in fact been one of the leading countries working on the ICC charter since the summer of 1998."
The United States and Israel -- previously staunch opponents of the ICC -- signed the convention at the last minute, on 31 December.
The signing of the charter is only the first step for countries involved in the ICC. Each country has to ratify the agreement, and 60 countries have to do so before the convention takes effect and the tribunal starts operating.
To date, only 25 countries have ratified the agreement. For many countries ratification can be a lengthy process involving a presentation and approval by national legislatures. Egypt, legal sources explain, would certainly need time before it could ratify the Rome charter. "Again this is not a sign of non-commitment, it is simply the way the system works," commented a Foreign Ministry source.
It was in Rome in July 1998 that UN delegates convened to hammer out the charter for what was then a giant step forward in the quest for human rights protection worldwide: a court that would tackle individuals responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.
On 17 July 1998, 120 countries voted for the statute and 21 abstained, among them the US and Israel. A generous grace period was given for signing the charter, allowing for the bureaucracy many governments could encounter.
A direct descendant of the post-World War II Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals in 1948, the ICC is built on the notion that "nobody is above the law" -- a point underscored by Jean Allain, assistant professor of international public law at the American University in Cairo (AUC). "I believe that the significance of having an International Criminal Court is that the promises made at Nuremberg are finally being fulfilled," Allain told Al-Ahram Weekly. Leaders and military commanders cannot act with impunity, and the ICC proves that "the way you conduct war is not unlimited, and that the way you treat your citizens is of concern to the entire international community."
The lessons learned during World War II and the Holocaust were the basis on which the human rights movement was built and activists and groups vowed it would never happen again. Beginning with the trial of Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg and continuing with so-called ad hoc UN tribunals to try war crimes in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the drive to set a standard for international justice has merely acted after the fact. Furthermore, many atrocities, like those committed by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, took place without their leaders ever being tried.
The Rome convention made it clear that the court would try individuals, not governments. The already existing International Court of Justice is responsible for settling inter-country disputes, but the new court will be empowered to try government officials accused of crimes against humanity, such as torture.
It was the mandate of the ICC that made the US and Israel particularly apprehensive about the signing. The US was concerned about the right of the ICC to try American military officers who might stand accused, in or out of the US, of committing war crimes or genocide.
For its part, Israel was also worried about the possible right of the ICC to try Israeli settlers in the occupied Palestinian territories for committing war crimes against Palestinians. Actually, the list of war crimes was expanded to include relocating populations in occupied territories -- an obvious point of contention with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Furthermore, there have been many calls for the trial of Israeli soldiers for atrocities committed against Palestinians, particularly with regard to the ongoing Al-Aqsa Intifada. According to Allain, these crimes fall within the court's jurisdiction.
"The ICC is a very important step in our struggle," said Amir Salem, head of the Legal Research Centre for Human Rights. "We can use the ICC to influence international opinion and with such a weapon, we can approach the international community on an equal footing. No longer will governments and international politics be able to place obstacles in the way of our attempts to seek solutions in international law."
This said, diplomatic sources tell Al-Ahram Weekly that the UN missions of the United States and Israel made it clear that their reading of the ICC charter does not entail such rights. The rule, however, is that the signatories of the ICC charter have no right to annex reservations to the charter. All they could do is present explanatory declarations.
"In any event both the US and Israel signed and this is an important development," Assistant Foreign Minister Awad said. The ICC can only try crimes that occur after it has become operative. So, it does not work retroactively.
According to Nasser Amin, regional coordinator of the Coalition for an International Criminal Court, an international NGO, the reason that many countries reversed their reluctance to sign the ICC is that they became convinced that the court would come into existence with or without them and that it was to their advantage "to have a foothold in the upcoming negotiations on the court's establishment. By signing the treaty, a country will have a say -- will be able to make proposals and may even have a role in choosing the judges."
NGOs have been in the vanguard of the movement to establish the ICC, and once the court is in place, independent groups will probably continue to play an important role as liaisons between the court and victims of war crimes. This fact has given rise to fears that the prominent role NGOs are bound to play will lead uneasy governments to curtail NGO activity. "These organisations will be the target of government repression, especially if they seek to put a government official on trial for the crime of torture, for example," said Amin. "At present, despite their limited role, regional NGOs face strong resistance from governments, by both legal and illegal means. What would happen if their role was increased? Even though it is a dream come true for these organisations, [the ICC] largely endangers their existence."
Related stories:
After the fact 7 - 13 September 2000
The rogue state 29 June - 5 July 2000
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
Send a letter to the Editor