{"id":94523,"date":"2017-06-26T12:00:21","date_gmt":"2017-06-26T11:00:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=94523"},"modified":"2017-06-25T11:19:27","modified_gmt":"2017-06-25T10:19:27","slug":"why-international-justice-still-faces-roadblocks","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2017\/06\/why-international-justice-still-faces-roadblocks\/","title":{"rendered":"Why International Justice Still Faces Roadblocks"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>

Flags fly outside of the United Nations\u2019 headquarters on Jan. 26 in New York City. (Spencer Platt\/Getty Images)<\/p><\/div>\n

22 Jun 2017 – <\/em>The prospects for justice for crimes against humanity and war crimes are more daunting today than at any time in the past two decades. The underlying political landscape is less favorable for accountability as compared with the 1990s, when the first international tribunals were established following the end of the Cold War and the International Criminal Court\u2019s (ICC) Rome Statute \u2014 the cornerstone of the international justice system \u2014 was completed in 1998. At the same time, there are important new opportunities to pursue justice through both national and international efforts.<\/p>\n

One feature of the negative change is the ever-clearer division among the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. The blockage has particular impact on accountability because the council can ask the ICC to investigate through a \u201creferral,\u201d an especially powerful tool for countries where the ICC otherwise lacks authority because these countries have not joined the court.<\/p>\n

The council referred the situation in Darfur<\/a> (2005) and Libya<\/a> (2011) to the court. Because of\u00a0a lack of international support for arrests, these two referrals have vexed the court and yielded little for victims.<\/p>\n

The authority given to the ICC in 1998, a high-water mark of the international community\u2019s commitment to accountability, was based on a consent-based international treaty negotiated by states. Its arrest and cooperation provisions can be difficult to implement even among those that nominally agree to be bound by the ICC.<\/p>\n

Council referrals are one of two exceptions to the consent regime, but even this can be blocked by a veto from any one of the permanent five. The reality is that countries that don\u2019t consent remain outside and immune from the court\u2019s reach.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s hardly surprising that the most powerful states \u2014 the United States, China and Russia \u2014 have not opted in and don\u2019t allow their closest allies to be subject to the court by Security Council referral. It\u2019s striking that armed conflicts marked by grave crimes are proliferating in countries that are not ICC members. As civilians are slaughtered without any access to redress, the inherent limitations of the court\u2019s structure stand out more prominently, and the court, wrongly, gets the blame.<\/p>\n

While there is a greater need for accountability, there is also less financial willingness to sustain it. Several of the largest government contributors to the ICC\u2019s budget rigidly insist that the ICC should hold costs to \u201czero nominal growth.\u201d In the face of increasing demands on the court, a few of these big contributing member states are holding the court to a standard that is infringing on the prosecutor\u2019s ability to open new investigations or adequately staff existing ones.<\/p>\n

In the face of these challenges there have been, nonetheless, several noteworthy developments.<\/p>\n

The ICC\u2019s leadership is trying to learn from earlier mistakes, make changes and steer the institution in the direction that it needs to go. This is clear in a few important areas:<\/p>\n