International justice

In the dock, but for what?

Enthusiasm is flagging for spectacular trials to punish war crimes and human-rights abuses

See article

Readers' comments



It has been said that support for international courts is in decline. As the author of this article explains, there is an argument currently gaining force which maintains that international courts such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) are impractical because they are expensive, do little good, and threaten to violate national sovereignty. This Realist view, however, ignores the power of socially constructed ideas about human rights. As Constructivism’s emphasis on socially constructed norms and the role of non-state actors demonstrates, courts such as the ICC will continue to be important in international affairs.
Although the article describes several different points of view, the principal argument referenced by the article represents a Structural Realist view. According to Kenneth Waltz, Structural Realism begins with sovereign states existing in a condition of anarchy (45, 53). As Waltz argues, states pursue their interests, which are defined by maximizing security (50). Highly important concerns for Realists are the sovereignty of the state and the pursuit of relative power in an anarchic state system. As the article argues, courts such as the ICC are of little value because they are extremely expensive while failing to serve the interests of the states who foot the bill. In fact, the Realist view referenced in the article maintains that ICC intervention constitutes a violation of state sovereignty. From a Realist perspective, courts such as the ICC is at best impractical and at worst a threat to state sovereignty and state interests, and for this reason the author argues that support for such courts will only continue to wane.
However, I believe that Constructivism offers a much more accurate and useful perspective on the issue of international courts. According to Alexander Wendt, Constructivism holds interests are defined by identity, which is socially constructed by the interactions between states (71). As Wendt argues, our conceptions of reality are created by an intersubjective context, rather than being pre-existing (70-71). Constructivism maintains that international relations are driven by socially constructed ideas and norms. In this case the norm, which has become fully integrated and is in what Finnemore and Sikkink (895) called the internalization stage of norm diffusion, is the existence of certain rules governing war crimes and human rights violations which are universal and can be prosecuted according to the universal jurisdiction of the ICC. This norm has been created by past interactions between states, and has its roots in the war crimes trials of the Nazi leadership following World War II, with the founding Rome Statute of the ICC finding its roots in the principles established at Nuremberg. The importance of international laws governing crimes of war and crimes against humanity, such as genocide, is a norm which has been constructed by the interactions between states ever since World War II, and which has gained too much currency to be simply cast aside.
Constructivism also allows for the importance of non-state actors such as transnational advocacy networks (TANs) in influencing the course of international relations, and TANs are particularly relevant when it comes to issues of human rights. According to Keck and Sikkink, TANs are non-state groups based upon shared beliefs and the willingness to act upon them (475). TANs hold influence in four ways: through politics of information, symbolism, leverage, and accountability (477). In this case, TANs such as the Coalition for the International Criminal Court, Human Rights Watch, and many others act to raise awareness about human rights violations and the importance of the ICC (information) and frame intervention as the protection of human rights rather than a violation of sovereignty (symbolism). The Save Darfur movement gathers signatures and mobilizes shame to pressure state leaders into acting against Omar al-Bashir (leverage), and when leaders fail to act on their promises these and other NGOs call them out (accountability). Transnational Advocacy Networks hold the power to mobilize the global public by disseminating and framing information to shape and influence public opinion. By focusing on state concerns and emphasizing divisions within the ranks of TANs, the article understates their importance.
The Realist perspective in the article fails to take into account just how important the concept of human rights has become in international politics. Realism’s state-centric emphasis on sovereignty holds less relevance in an international community in which the importance of preserving human rights and prosecuting war criminals has become so widely accepted. From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to the green “Save Darfur” wristbands, international concern for human rights is here to stay.


As the world becomes more complex and interdependent, more and more institutions are gaining power and influence over regions, states, or people. A problem often arises when these institutions become too closely aligned with or defined by a particular state or group of states. The International Criminal Court should be an institution completely separate from any state. It should be evolved into an epistemic community where experts have authority and they do not answer directly to any state.
The article uses China and Russia’s permanent seats on the Security Council as an issue in that. On the ICC, the members need to be unaffiliated with state interests. When state representatives become involved in important international institutions a whole additional level of priorities is added to the game that detracts from the overall purpose- to benefit the world community. For example when the genocide broke out in Rwanda, in a bizarre consequence the Rwandan representative was rotated onto the Security Council. When they were debating whether to authorize the use of force by UN forces in Rwanda they had the awkward situation of offending a council member. Instead of putting the people of Rwanda first, they avoided the tension in the room by siding with the Hutu government. If this situation had been different and there were no representatives, only experts with the worlds goals in mind. This epistemic community could be part of the worldwide society and not merely a combination of the strongest state’s interests.
The main issue with having countries with a hand hold on the ICC is that it corrupts the intent of the Court in the most basic terms. This court is supposed to handle human atrocities and crimes against humanity. These types of crimes do not merely affect the people in the violence zone, but the world wide community as humanity in general is being injured and altered. When genocide occurs, the perpetrators should answer to the world and everyone in their immediate community.
Making the ICC more of an epistemic community may solve some of the issues holding the court back. One of these problems pointed out by the article is that nothing seems to be being done. This may be due to the fact that they answer to too many leaders. Again using Rwanda as an example when the ICC finally got around to indicting the leaders of the genocide movement and the biggest players, it was a very slow moving process where almost nothing seemed to be accomplished. This may have been because the French took such an interest in the Hutu Power regime. When Tutsi exile rebels invaded, finally taking things into their own hands after the UN had their hands tied and looked the other way; it was the French that arranged to move the Hutu army and leaders safely out of the country in Operation Turquoise. The ICC knew of the French interests and may have been wary to offend them. With a panel of experts this should not happen as they should be dedicated more to their field of study than their home. This epistemic community could be run by people hired just as in any other job- the most qualified leading the pack- and not representatives from countries that in the end may be realist and see the benefit of their country over the world as a whole.


Humanity's solution in the pursuit of universal justice was to create a system to determine who deserves to be punished for their wrongdoings against other people. Domestic courts that resolve local crimes and disputes helped spawn the formation of national courts and then on an even larger scale, the International Criminal Court. In the eyes of some, this is seen as progress for the human race in that most nations collectively agree that, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights” (Clause 1, Universal Declaration of Human Rights) and those who commit crimes against humanity deserve to be punished for their actions. However, since the ICC was established in the 1990’s, it’s understandable to see why many have lost faith due to the enormous price tags on each of these trials and the ineffectiveness of the system, which has only produced 12 arrest warrants.
The rights outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human rights, chartered by the United Nations in 1948, can be seen as a part of our identity as a human race. The fact that we are “endowed” with these rights makes them a part of us and determines our interests. This is a basic principle of constructivism, that our identities and interests are shaped by our actions. Because we believe that humans are born with these rights, we feel the need to stand for those whose rights have been violated and carry out punishment on those responsible for those violations.
The UN security council’s role in the ICC basically determines what situations get priority through the process of referring cases to the court. It seems though that the security council has hit a bit of a stalemate since the interests of individual nations are taking precedence in the decision making. This behavior reflects countries such as China and Russia’s realist positions in the process. They are using their power as permanent members of the security council to protect national interests and prevent any kind of international organization from interfering with a country’s sovereignty. This is ironic because the UN itself is a major international organization founded on liberal (not the political affiliation but theory relating to international relations) principles to create cooperation between nations through increased interactions.
One point that the article makes is that the ICC sends a message to wrongdoers worldwide that their deeds risk punishment from the international community. If the ICC continues to prove that it can’t address war crimes and human rights violations outside of Africa, then this “message to wrongdoers” will prove ineffective over time. War lords and rebel leaders in many countries happen to be the only major authoritative figures that could implement a peace process of any kind. They will, and probably already have realized that they are basically untouchable to the ICC because of this, even though most of the world may know fully of their wrongdoings and acts of oppression.


The ICC is a cute little court for the Third World. It is a place in the minds of Western Europeans where evil stands trial. But like all courts they are only as strong as their member states permit. Currently the United States, Russia, and China are NOT even parties to the ICC (US and Russia have not ratified and China has not even signed up). When three of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council are not subject to the ICC I think that clearly defines the court's scope (not to mention other states such as India, Turkey, and Pakistan). As I said, it is a court for the benefit of Africa and little more.

A quote often attributed to President Andrew Jackson sums the impotence of this court nicely. When informed of the Supreme Court's decision in Worcester v. Georgia he purportedly claimed, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."


Common, let's face it, the only way anyone on this planet will take ICC seriously is if Bush got tried, and even then, it would only be a minor step.

Fossil American

economical aetiology wrote: “...But why most of the nations that ICC tries are poor and why does not it try case on George Bush and his lies about WMD.....”

Mr. Common Sense wrote: “Death of international justice was quite predictable after what U.S. Army did in Iraq.”


Gentleman, the US Army did nothing wrong in Iraq. In fact, we minimized the use of force at a cost of more US risks and likely more US casualties.

Remember, the entire world thought Iraq had WMD, and in fact, Iraq used WMD on its own people in Northern Iraq.

The US could have conducted carpet bombing and destroy Sadam at little US lost of live. Upon eliminating Sadam, the US could have pull out and leave Iraq on its own –saving many US lives. Instead, the US stayed and help Iraq get back on its feet at great cost to us.

The US could have flattened Iraq with cruse missiles alone – at great cost to Iraq and little or no cost of American life. But instead, we do it surgically, and we stayed to help Iraq get back on its feet as best we can.

The US water boarded three individuals. What bodily harm did they suffer? To call that torture is a misunderstanding of what torture really is. Read some history, you’ll see what torture really is.

Shame on you for defaming the US Army and America. Shame on you.

Reluctant Polluter


International Justice should do that, should be this... but it doesn't and it isn't. Most importantly, it won't - and the article makes it exhaustively clear.

In justice, like everywhere else, he who pays the piper calls the tunes. In the case of ICC it is the UN Security Council. Can this court become independent of the UNSC? Yes, it can. Thus it will achieve the maximum possible independence - absolutely nothing will depend on it.

moby shaw

what about the atrocities of the biggest democracy INDIA which is inflicting on kashmiris who have been killed and maimed .already more than 120000 according to unoffical estimates and still counting.about more than 10000 disappearances and more than 100000 injured and thousands treated worse than animals in the prsons were gauntanemo is heaven.

Mr. Common Sense


However, this given green light to dictators and rebels everywhere, which will cause US more damage than it was worth.


International Justice should operate ex-oficio, independently from any political body like the UNSC. Everybody from any country should be under its jurisdiction. International Justice will be a sad joke as long as the US (and Europe, and Israel, and China) go around the world committing atrocious crimes without any prospect of ever being held accountable for them. The Law should be above everything.


Please remember that Thousands of People rotting in Prisons in Turkey without any trial, without an efficent cause.
Government (AKP) want to punish them, because they are secular intellectuals,writers, Academicians etc., opposing the Islamic Government. AKP, creates this Conspiracy Theories against them and put them in prison. AKP, has changed the whole judiciary System,they put their own men in crucial places, so they can do what ever they like without any resistance.



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

