In late July, 1998, 120 countries signed a treaty creating an International Criminal Court (ICC) to pursue cases of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Included in the class of crimes are crimes against children--such as conscription in armies or militia--and persecution on the basis of gender (rape, sexual slavery). The ICC treaty will come into effect once it is ratified by 60 states, a process proponents hope will take three to four years.

Although human rights workers have welcomed the treaty and generally believe that it represents an important milestone in the promotion of human rights on a global level, the treaty has generated some misgivings both within the international human rights community and without. Human rights advocates have been critical of provisions that weaken the Court, such as the "opt-out" clause concerning war crimes that allows ratifying states to opt out of the Court's jurisdiction for a period of seven years. Another clause allows states not to cooperate with the Court if they deem the Court's actions to contradict a state's "fundamental national law."

The United States' position on the ICC has generated significant controversy for entirely different reasons. Throughout the negotions the Clinton administration insisted on provisions that would, in effect, guarantee that no US citizen could be brought under the Court's jurisdiction without the agreement of the US government. The strong opposition of the US Department of Defense was particularly visible in March, when the Pentagon urged non-US militaries--including many with very poor human rights records--to pressure their governments to support a treaty establishing a weak court. In the end, the US declined to sign the treaty, placing itself in the company of a small number of countries, several of which have deplorable human rights records.

Aside from the controversy concerning the strengths and weaknesses of the treaty as it is, there are more fundamental debates on the advisability of an International Criminal Court. The following debate, which appeared in the Summer 1998 issue of Middle East Report before the final negotiations concluded, addresses some of these issues. Joe Stork argues that a properly conceived and structured international criminal court would constitute significant progress in human rights enforcement, while Lisa Hajjar holds that the international community and human rights activists in particular would be much better served by a different set of institutions. MERIP will continue to follow and participate in this debate. Future MERIP analyses will comment on the treaty that ultimately emerged in Rome, the role of Middle East states in the negotiations, and the implications of the treaty for Middle East states and issues. MERIP will also assess the implications of the US opposition to the Court.

Forum Articles

 Forum Articles

Constructing an International Criminal Court

Joe Stork - Middle East Report, Summer 1998

Complementing the International Court of Justice in The Hague, which hears disputes between governments, the ICC [will] investigate and try individuals accused of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. An ICC, had it existed, could have been the venue for the work of the special tribunals now dealing with the atrocities committed in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.

Alternatives to an International Criminal Court

Lisa Hajjar - Middle East Report, Summer 1998

Deterrence and punishment are righteous aspirations. However, an ICC is not the best means to these ends. The creation of a new permanent institution with global jurisdiction would undermine the effective directionality of human rights, which seeks to make international standards and prohibitions applicable and enforceable locally.

Joe Stork Responds to Lisa Hajjar

Middle East Report, Summer 1998

Other Resources

CICC Home Page on the International Criminal Court, an NGO site providing documents on the International Criminal Court

On the Record, provides daily accounts of July 1998 negotiations in Rome.

Coalition for International Justice provides information on the war crimes tribunals in the former Yugoslavia and Rawanda.

The official UN page on the ICC

Amnesty International site on the ICC

International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, features documents, press statements, tribunal publications, and news.

Human Rights Watch page on the The Campaign to Establish an International Criminal Court (ICC)

Home