Comments (0)

By Sarah Repucci, March 24, 2010

This week was the eight session of the Assembly of States Parties (ASP) for the International Criminal Court (ICC) in New York.  The purpose of this meeting was to give states parties, as well as interested observers, an opportunity to prepare for the upcoming Review Conference, when they will take stock of the progress the court has made thus far and prepare it for its next phase.  The major point of contention is the so-called crime of aggression.

As is well known, the Bush administration was extremely hostile to the court, thinking that it would target American soldiers and generally impinge on U.S. sovereignty.  The second concern is certainly justified.  The countries that are members of the court – including all of our European allies, Japan, Australia, and most of South America and Africa – either believe that this is a small price to pay for peace and justice (generally the former), or gain more power through participation than the little they have on their own (the latter).  Countries that view their freedom to act as a boost to their power, including Russia, China, Israel, and Iran as well as the United States, remain on the sidelines.

The Obama administration has been more friendly to the court, but this is not saying much.  Thus, the mere fact that the administration sent a delegation to participate in the ASP was considered progress.  Progress on substance is secondary, and slow.  The major positive statement from the United States at the meeting was a pledge to cooperate with the court.  The pledge was carefully couched in language noting that even non-states parties can cooperate (i.e. the United States may not ratify the Rome Convention).

The United States will not ratify the convention before the Review Conference, or soon thereafter.  However, its position is affected by the crime of aggression.  This crime has been discussed since the very beginnings of the ICC, and currently has perhaps the greatest state-party support it has had to date.  Since the United States is one of the minority of countries in the world that has engaged in any activity that might be termed such aggression, it is unsurprisingly opposed to the addition.  But, as it has not ratified the convention, it does not have a vote.

So this week the U.S. delegation concentrated on two tactics: a targeted statement explaining its position, and pressure on its member-friends to take its interests into account.  The statement said that the crime of aggression could politicize the court, leading it to take on cases that are more about world politics than peace and justice.  The crime of aggression, they said, is different from the other crimes the court handles, such as war crimes.  And at this time of ICC review, states parties should consider what would strengthen the court, while a new crime of aggression might instead place new burdens.

Incidentally, the arguments made by the countries opposed to the U.S. stance dovetail perfectly with those used by the superpower.  The United States advocates allowing the UN Security Council as a filter to approve any possible investigation of a crime of aggression, which is widely viewed as exactly the kind of politicization (given the United States’s veto) that the United States claims it abhors.  Most delegations in their statements said the crime of aggression is specifically not different from other crimes.  And they believe it would strengthen the court, a consideration to which they also attach utmost importance.

There were several thinly veiled stabs at the United States during the delegation statements.  Venezuela led the charge that approval of cases by an outside body (such as the Security Council) would impinge on the court’s independence, ignoring its own assaults on the national judiciary.  Cuba (a non-member) mentioned that aggression could be economic as well as military.  Many states also referred to the fact that there has been an open consultation process on aggression to date, implying that the United States could have participated and yet it did not.  This, of course, was because the Bush administration wanted nothing at all to do with the court.

Based on the overwhelming support expressed for adding a crime of aggression, it appears likely that some amendment will pass at the June meeting.  Depending on how the amendment is phrased, this could lead the United States to pull back again.  If the United States does not feel it will be protected against investigation as an aggressor, any hope of ratification will be dashed.  In fact, regardless of the crime of aggression, it is generally believed that there is no hope of the United States ratifying the convention at least until a potential second Obama administration.  Health care has taken too much of his early political capital, and Obama and other democrats cannot jeopardize their re-election prospects over the ICC.

Comments (0)

By Debbie, February 4, 2010

Sudan’s Leader May Be Accused of Genocide

The president of Sudan, who is already facing an international arrest warrant, came under new legal scrutiny on Wednesday when appeals judges at The Hague reopened the possibility that he may be charged with genocide.

The Sudanese leader, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, became the first sitting president to face an arrest order by the International Criminal Court in March, when pre-trial judges said he should be tried for crimes against humanity and war crimes in Sudan’s region of Darfur. But the judges rejected the prosecutor’s request to charge Mr. Bashirwith genocide, arguing that the evidence presented was insufficient.The court’s appeals chamber, in a short session on Wednesday, directed the judges to reconsider the prosecution evidence and to decide anew whether Mr. Bashir’s actions could amount to genocide. They found that the judges had used far higher standards of proof than were needed for an arrest warrant, and that the dismissal of the prosecutor’s genocide charges therefore amounted to an “error or law.”

Lawyers following the proceedings said that to sign an arrest order at this court, judges must find that there are “grounds for charges” but that in this case the judges had sought a level of proof needed to find someone guilty or innocent.

The re-opening of the genocide question may not bring Sudan’s president, who has thus far defied the court, any closer to trial in The Hague. But genocide charges carry a heavy weight that could affect his international dealings and isolate him.

For Entire Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/world/africa/04bashir.html?scp=1&sq=bashir&st=cse

Comments (0)

By Debbie, December 29, 2009

Eyes on the ICC Seeks New Editor-in-Chief 

The Board of Directors is accepting applications for the position of Editor-in-Chief of Eyes on the ICC, CASIN’s flagship academic journal on the International Criminal Court. Junior faculty, postdoctoral fellows, ABDs, and advanced graduate students are especially encouraged to apply. The deadline for applications is January 31, 2010. 

Eyes on the ICC is an annual journal published by the Council for American Students in International Negotiations, a non-profit, non-partisan organization composed of a network of students and young professionals from around the world.  

Entering its sixth year of publication, Eyes on the ICC is an interdisciplinary journal that invites submissions from any field that address the International Criminal Court or international criminal law more generally. Past editors have come from the fields of international law, international relations, and sociology. To view current and previous volumes, please visit the journal’s website.

JOB DESCRIPTION:

The Editor-in-Chief (EIC), with the assistance of the Managing Editor and 5-7 Assistant Editors, will be responsible for producing one volume per publication year, comprised of at least five articles, with a camera-ready manuscript due on November 1. Submissions are accessed via Expresso as well as through direct e-mail contact between authors and the EIC or the Managing Editor. The EIC reports to the Publications Committee of CASIN’s Board of Directors.

Additional obligations will include:

-          Assisting in managing submissions received via Expresso as well as through direct e-mail contact with ME or EIC;

-          Assisting in managing submissions to be published on the CASIN website throughout the publication year;

-          Managing the peer review process;

-          Supervising the Managing Editor;

-          Making article selection decisions based on reviews of Editorial Staff;

-          Assisting with all final-editing of all accepted articles and assisting with intermittent contact with authors throughout selection process as need be;

-          Maintaining regular contact with ME, who manages most of administrative editorial process;

-          Maintaining regular contact with Publications Board, Directors, and Peer Reviewers, as well as Editorial Advisory Board;

Please note that this is a virtual position. Work is coordinated predominantly through e-mail and other forms of electronic exchange. Please also note that this position is offered without compensation.

QUALIFICATIONS:

-          Editorial/publication experience;

-          Strong writing, research, and interpersonal skills;

-          Comfort working closely with virtual staff;

-          Strong commitment to international human rights, criminal law, and/or social justice;

-          be reliable, organized, and team-oriented.

Address all questions to publications@americanstudents.us. Applicants will be notified of the decision by mid-February, 2010.

How to Apply:

Submit a letter of interest, a resume/CV, 1-2 writing samples, and 3 references to publications@americanstudents.us.