Mobile version Today: 19.12.2014 Last update 00:37 | Select date RUS | ENG | SRB
 
 
home sitemap write a letter facebook twitter
Add to favourites RSS


ONLINE JOURNAL
About us
Authors
Contacts
    Russia Confronts US’ Containment Strategy  
    Otto von Bismarck’s Epistle to Angela Merkel  
    Obama Launches His War, Finally  
  HOME PAGE WORLD BUSINESS HISTORY & CULTURE COLUMNISTS  
 
 
 
EDITOR'S CHOICE
 
‘Can’t stuff this bear’ & other Putin Q&A quotes
 
America Confronts Russia: Kiev Anti-Russian False Flag Planned?
all articles
 
 
 
 
NEWS
 
 
EU running out of budgetary capability to support Ukraine - EC president...

Poroshenko Submits Bill to Cancel Ukraine's Non-Aligned Status...

Iran to stage drill to boost anti-terror readiness...

Iraq Kurds, coalition launch offensive to retake Sinjar...

Western nations want to chain 'the Russian bear' - Putin...

US Still Facing Challenges in Building Secure Energy System: IEA...

Pentagon builds up military presence near Russia...

Italian PM urges revision of attitude to Russia, opposes sanctions...

Foreign Bankers Rape Ukraine...

Putin notes Erdogan’s firm position on gas contract with Russia in face of West pressure...

Russia-Turkey Cooperation to Intensify Despite Western Sanctions: Official...

EU Parliament Ratifies Association Deal With Georgia...

Putin: Russia’s Position on Ukraine Conflict Right, West Mistaken...

Russian President Vladimir Putin is holding his tenth annual news conference in Moscow (VIDEO)...

Luhansk republic adapting legislation to Russian model - LPR official...

all news
 
 
 
FACEBOOK
 
 

 

 
 
 
back print
 
WORLD

Who the International Criminal Court Is Really Created for?

Alexander MEZYAEV | 13.04.2012 | 00:00
 

Not long ago the International Criminal Court (ICC) handed down a noteworthy ruling. Formally it was related to two African states – Malawi and Chad visited by president of Sudan Omar al-Bashir. Their fault was not so much receiving him but rather not putting him under arrest. The warrant was issued by the ICC back in 2009. According to the ICC Statute all states are to cooperate with the Court. A refusal to arrest president of Sudan Omar al-Bashir became a substantiation for making responsible the states that appear to have no relation to it. The decision exposes the real essence of the ICC as an instrument of global hegemony reflected in grandiloquent legal form. It has at least two reasons. 

Let’s start with a few words concerning the first one. It lies on the surface. The gist of it is that the ICC tries to establish a system of total control over all states that are signatories to the Statute. Any state that doesn’t cooperate with the ICC is to be punished. As I see it, the ICC goes far beyond international law and even its own Statute. The matter is a demand to arrest a head of a neighboring state and “cooperation” with the ICC are not identical notions. 

And at that, not all states refusing to cooperate with the Court are punished. Just a few days after Malawi and Chad were publicly flogged the president of Sudan visited Libya. The reaction was quite different. The Court did not take measures against Libya, moreover it pretended not to notice the event. The Libyan authorities had not been told to arrest al-Bashir before the visit and no steps against them were taken afterwards. So why this gap in attitudes towards different countries displayed by the International Criminal Court? The reason is that al-Bashir took an active part in the Gaggafi’s overthrow. And it raises a question, if the price for it wasn’t his own safety in relation to the ICC... 

It’s noteworthy that some countries are allowed not to comply with the ICC decisions, for instance France. A few weeks ago Florance Hartmann, former spokesperson press-secretary for the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY), who is a citizen of France, received a seven years prison sentence from the Tribunal (for disclosing classified information related to the case of S. Milosevic). France refused to comply with the Court’s order. The French authorities said the obligation to cooperate with the Court encompasses only the cases where military criminals are involved. F. Hartmann had no relation to war crimes. The Tribunal was bashfully silent. 

Now about the second reason behind the Court’s ruling on Malawi and Chad. It’s something international courts often resort to it. The idea is simple: a decision appears to be taken for something quite different from the real objectives. It is possible due to Anglo-Saxon control over the international courts and their perception of legal precedent and lawmaking by courts. The approach is welcomed by judges coming from other legal systems as it is comfortably suitable for pushing through the needed rulings. The Anglo-American legal system considers a legal precedent as a core legal pillar, but who has given a permission to spread this concept on international courts? The very “international” courts have. How does it function? Here’s an example. In 2005 the case against Slobodan Milosevic didn’t go anywhere in court, including the main accusation of genocide. According to international law a person can be held responsible for genocide in case special intent was evident. In other words one cannot commit an act of genocide at random, or just being not careful enough or even having an indirect intent. But Milosevic had to be held responsible exactly for genocide no matter the intent was not proven. That’s where a ‘legal precedent” helped. The one invented for someone’s own purposes! In a minor case of Radoslav Brdjanin, a former city mayor, a guilty verdict was handed down. It stated it was not necessary to establish the fact of special intent in case of genocide accusation. That’s all! No Genocide Convention is to lay down the law for the Tribunal now! The only thing that’s left to do is to refer to”a precedent taken place previously”! Bold enough, but no way the ICTY’s decisions hold water! 

That’s the policy chosen by the ITCY towards the two African states. Formally the court decision is taken on Malawi and Chad, but it can also be taken against any country that is not a signatory to Statute. Russia, for instance! That’s what the second reasoning confirms. It’s just one line that is a clue to getting it right. Here it is: “The Chamber finds that customary international law creates an exception to Head of State immunity when international courts seek a Head of State’s arrest for the commission of international crimes”. To support this “very advanced” decision the ICC resorted to the well known paragraph 61 of the UN International Court decision concerning the “Arrest Warrant of the Democratic Republic of Congo”: “Official capacity as head of state shall in no case exempt from criminal responsibility in international tribunals”. To put it mildly the quotation is not precise. In reality the UN International Court stated:” «…an incumbent or former Minister for Foreign Affairs may be subject to criminal proceedings before certain international criminal courts, where they have jurisdiction» (1). 

Feel the difference as they say! The purpose of omitting the words “where they have jurisdiction” is clear too. The matter is the International Criminal Court has no jurisdiction over al-Bashir because Sudan is not a party to it. The transfer of the Sudan case from the UN Security Council to the ICC has no legal implications for Sudan, because this right of the Security Council is not specified in the UN Charter (that Sudan is a party to) but in the very same International Court’s Statute (that Sudan is not a party to). A simple conclusion shows the absurdity of the International Court’s assertion. If a head of state is not immune to any international court then, for instance, Nauru, Fiji, Vanuatu and the Federal States of Micronesia can create an international tribunal and bring to justice the president of Russia, or the chairman of the People’s Republic of China, or even the president of the USA himself!..

The main question is not why the International Criminal Court omitted such important words while quoting UN International Court’s decisions but rather what makes it think it can get away with such an evident falsification? Could the judges take responsibility upon themselves for changing the international law norms and doing it so blatantly, or did they carry out somebody’s direct instructions? 

Who is the International Criminal Court is really created for? …We were told it’s for punishing main international criminals and the participation is exclusively voluntary… But as time goes by we can see the Court has been becoming an instrument in the hands of the leading world crime perpetrators and its jurisdiction is aimed at those who are not even parties to the treaty that established it. The recent years have seen the rise of legal activism concept and aggressive pushing through one’s own rules under the disguise of “customary international law”. Taking it into account Russia should clearly and unambiguously state its international legal stance. It will not allow the international legal activists-provocateurs say afterwards that no objections on the part of states is “a confirmation of establishing a new norm of customary international law”. The mentioned above pushing is practiced forcefully and openly: the International Criminal Courts pre-trial chamber said that the Malawi and Chad case proved: ”international persecution of heads of states has become widely recognized as accepted practice”. As one of the Russian literature classics said if there is a gun hanging on the wall in the first act, it will certainly fire at the end of the play. So, the gun is already hanging on the wall of international stage. The targets are defined clearly enough – the countries that are not parties to the International Criminal Court. Is the only thing that is left for us to do is wait for the time when the trigger is pulled?..

____________________________

1) Literally: «…an incumbent or former Minister for Foreign Affairs may be subject to criminal proceedings before certain international criminal courts, where they have jurisdiction». The UN International Court lists examples of cases mentioning the ICC. But it’s not the ICC decisions in general that are in question, but the concrete cases under its jurisdiction. The UN International Court sets as examples the cases handed by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. We find it wrong. The UN Security Council (that has created the tribunals in question) has no authority to cancel the norms of customary international law. The full text of the UN International Court’s decision, ref. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/121/8126.pdf. The commentary on the UN International Court’s decision, ref. A.B. Mezyaev., Arrest Warrant Case (the Democratic republic of Congo against Belgium).// Russian International Law Manual - 2003, Saint-Petersburg-2003, p.84-99. 

 
Tags: International Criminal Court Chad Malawi Russia Sudan al-Bashir
 

 
Rating: 4.4 (9)      Your rating: 1 2 3 4 5     
 
Send by e-mail

Социальные комментарии Cackle
Comments
 
To add a comment, Login or Register
 
 
 
OUR COLUMNIST
    Finian CUNNINGHAM

Ending the Cold War on Cuba? From the Freezer to the Chiller

As US President Barack Obama announced his surprise «historic» bid to normalise relations with Cuba this week, the New York Times swooned with glowing news. ‘US to Restore Full Relations With Cuba, Erasing a Last Trace of Cold War Hostility’ was how its top headline put it. Welcoming the development, the American «newspaper of record» said Obama vowed to «cut loose the shackles of the past» and to «sweep aside one of the last vestiges of the Cold War». But, purple prose aside, the hard detail is that the ongoing illegal American embargo on Cuba will stay in place. Moreover, the move comes as Washington slaps on more sanctions against Russia and unleashes new sanctions on Venezuela...

19.12.2014
 
 
 
 
 
 
TAGS
 
 
 
Aeroflot AFISMA African Union Africom AIPAC Al Qaeda Al Shabaab Al-Jazeera ALBA Amnesty International Anonymous APEC Arab League ASEAN ATAKA Atomstroyexport Bank for International Settlements Bank of America Barclays Basel Committee BBC Bilderberg Club Black Bloc Blackwater Boco Haram BP BRICS CELAC Center for Responsive Politics CEPAL Chevron CIA CICA CIS Citigroup CNN Committee of 147 Committee of 300 Council of Europe Council on Foreign Relations Crescent Crescent Petroleum CSTO Customs Union DARPA Davos DEA Defense Intelligence Agency DIA Dragon Family E.ON Eager Lion ECOWAS EDA ELNET Enbridge Pipelines ETA EU EULEX EurAsEc Eurasian Union European Commission European Court of Human Rights European Union Exxon Mobil Facebook FAO FARC FATAH FBI FDA Federal Reserve FIFA Financial Action Task Force Financial Stability Board Fitch Franklin Templeton Freedom House FRS FSB FTA FUEN G-4 G20 G7 G8 GATA Gazprom GECF Glonass Goldman Sachs Google Greenpeace GUAM Guardian Gulf Cooperation Council Hague Tribunal HAMAS Heritage Foundation Hezbollah Hizb ut-Tahrir HSBC Human Rights Watch IAEA IEA IHRC IMF International Criminal Court Interpol IOC ISAF Islamic jihad Islamic Revolution Guards Corps ITERA Jamestown JP Morgan Jundullah KFOR KLA Ku Klux Klan Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam Lukoil Massachusetts Institute of Technology Mercosur Microsoft Missile defense Missile Defense Agency Moody's Morgan Stanley Mossad Most-Favoured Nation Mujahedin-e Khalq Muslim Brotherhood Nabucco Naftogaz NASA Nation of Islam National Security Agency NATO NDAA NDI NED Non-aligned Movement NORAD Nord Stream NORTHCOM Northern Distribution Network NSA OECD Oerlikon OIC OPCW OPEC Open Government Partnership Organization of American States OSCE OTW movement OUN / UPA PACE PACOM Pan-Europa movement Pentagon PJAK PKK PRISM PYD Red Cross Renova Republican Party Rosatom Roscosmos Rosneft Rosoboronexport Ruhrgas RusAl RWE SABSA Scientology Shanghai Cooperation Organization Shell Siemens South Stream Southern Command Standard & Poor's Statoil Strategic Nuclear Forces Stratfor SWF SWIFT Syrian National Council SYRIZA Taliban Tamarod TAPI TeleSur TNK-BP Total Transneft TTIP Twitter UN UN International Court UNASUR UNESCO USAID Valdai Club Visegrad Group Wall Street Westinghouse Wikileaks World Bank WTO Yukos “Mass Atrocity Response Operations”
 
 
 

Republishing is welcomed with reference to Strategic Culture Foundation on-line journal www.strategic-culture.org.


 

 

 
 
© Strategic Culture Foundation

RSS

Main Politics History&Culture Archive Authors Popular
  Economics Columns About Contact

Яндекс.Метрика

 

Alexander MEZYAEV


all articles