To help end the genocide in the western Sudanese region of Darfur, the United States must review its policies, in particular those regarding the International Criminal Court.
This was the central message of a panel discussion co-sponsored by the VCU student chapter of Americans for Informed Democracy and the Douglas L. Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs on Friday.
Herbert Hirsch, associate professor of political science, gave a brief overview of attempts in 20th century to try people for crimes against humanity. Historically, according to Hirsch, such attempts have consisted of ad hoc criminal tribunals or courts set up by the United Nations.
The International Criminal Court, however, is a permanent court with jurisdiction to try cases of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
Donald Ferencz of the Planethood Foundation, a private organization advocating law rather than force to resolve conflicts, discussed the international court in more depth and explained how the U.S. has been opposed to certain aspects of the court since the first attempts to ratify the Treaty of Rome, which created the court.
“The United States basically went and knocked on everybody’s door and said, . . . ‘Have I got an offer for you. It’s an offer you can’t refuse. If you don’t sign a document saying that you will never under any circumstance extradite an American, anyone in our government or anyone we’ve sent abroad . we will cut off all your military aid,’ ” he said.
Ferencz discussed the basis of the U.S. government’s opposition to the International Criminal Court, located in the Netherlands. He said people fear that American citizens would be taken to the court for politically motivated reasons and tried without the protection of American laws. However, Ferencz said, these fears aren’t warranted because of the court’s limited jurisdiction.
“Before the court can hear any case on any subject, other than a referral from the Security Council, the prosecutor typically has to go to the country . where the accused lives and ask that country a very simple question: ‘Are you planning to investigate?’ And if, in fact, that answer comes back ‘yes’ . then the prosecutor has no further authority,” Ferencz said.
Hirsch said these fears are probably unfounded, and the U.S. involvement could have a positive effect on Americans abroad.
“The U.S. would be viewed as one of hundreds of other nations, and when Americans were captured, they would be treated according to the laws of war as defined by the international statute,” Hirsch said.
Julia Fitzpatrick of Citizens for Global Solutions, a grassroots organization that advocates countries working together to solve problems, said the lack of enforcement ability has caused problems with conducting investigations.
It is a policy of the U.N. Security Council to refer cases of potential crimes against humanity to the International Criminal Court. In March 2005 the council voted 11-0 to bring up the Darfur conflict before the court and request investigation of the armed confrontation of the Janjaweed militia group and local tribes.
Four countries from the U.N., including the United States, abstained from the vote, Fitzpatrick said.
“It didn’t prevent the referral, which allowed the U.S. to say, ‘Hey, we’ve called this genocide, we’re still living up to our good name and doing our part, but at the same time we don’t really want to recognize this court yet,’ ” Fitzpatrick said. “So they were able to express their commitment to Darfur,” recognizing the problem without approving the court.
After the referral, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the prosecutor for the International Criminal Court, began an investigation of the conflict in Darfur. The investigation involved missions to several countries surrounding Sudan, but since Sudan is not a party to the International Criminal Court, Moreno-Ocampo was not allowed into Darfur. The Sudanese government also claimed Ali Kushayb, a suspected Janjaweed militia leader for whom the International Criminal Court issued a summons to appear, was being tried in the Sudanese court system.
There are measures to aid investigations of the court in such cases, Ferencz said.
“If there is a sham trial, then the prosecutor has the right to keep an eye on it, to review it and to go back and seek approval later to take jurisdiction of the case and continue a legitimate investigation,” Ferencz said.
Margaret Pulju, a junior chemistry and psychology major, acknowledged there are problems with the International Criminal Court, but said the criticism of the U.S. was fair.
“You can never be too harsh when you are . working toward positive change that would really benefit the lives of people in those countries,” Pulju said.