Will the ICC Help Defeat Qaddafi?
June 28, 2011 ; Deborah Jerome, Deputy Editor
Muammar al-Qaddafi could face a war crimes trial at The Hague after the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for him, along with his son Saif al-Islam and his military intelligence chief General Abdullah al-Sanoussi. The June 27 warrants, which came on the one hundredth day of international military operations in Libya, allege the men were involved in ordering security forces to fire on unarmed protesters in February. But while many Libyans in Benghazi, Misurata, and elsewhere celebrated the ICC's announcement, questions abound about whether the warrants will speed the regime's fall or deepen its defiance (TIME).
Qaddafi and the others named by the ICC are accused of orchestrating the killing (WashPost), injuring, arrest, and imprisonment of hundreds of civilians during the first dozen days of the uprising against Qaddafi. Thousands more have died since. The hostilities have led to humanitarian concerns about the flight of Libyans into Europe and neighboring countries. Oil markets have also been disrupted, with oil prices at their lowest yesterday (National) since the start of the Libyan conflict, as markets prepared for a global release from crude reserves. The Qaddafi regime's ouster is a condition for the cessation of NATO military operations and the departure of allied troops.
The Qaddafi regime dismissed the court's announcement (Reuters). Libya is not a signatory to the Rome statute establishing the ICC in 1998, and the court only has jurisdiction in countries that have signed and ratified the statute; it relies on member states and other international organizations to perform arrests and has limited enforcement mechanisms. The only other warrant the ICC has issued for a sitting leader was in 2005 for Sudan's Omar Hassan al-Bashir, for crimes in Darfur. Bashir remains in power, though his movements out of the country are somewhat constricted (he is traveling to China this week). (Sudan unsigned the Rome Statute)
So while the ICC warrants further isolate Qaddafi (alArabiya) and "dramatize the illegitimacy of his regime in the eyes of most of the world,,, [they do] not ensure he will appear in the dock at The Hague any time soon--if ever," writes London-based analyst Ray Moseley. Is the ICC warrant meaningless, then?
pros (argument for warrant)
Some human rights activists argue that such arrests can act as a warning to other repressive leaders. "The record from other conflicts also shows that arrest warrants for senior leaders can actually strengthen peace efforts by stigmatizing those who stand in the way of conflict resolution," says Human Rights Watch, noting "the indictments of Radovan Karadzic and Radko Mladic by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia are credited with keeping them sidelined during the Dayton peace talks, which led to the end of the Bosnian war." White House spokesman Jay Carney said the Qaddafi warrant (CNN) is "another step in the process of holding him accountable."
cons (argument against warrant)
Others, like the Guardian's Simon Tisdall, argue that "the court's demarche may reinforce Qaddafi's determination to stay" and fight. "Heads of state are less inclined to consider a negotiated settlement (CSMonitor), once they're in an armed conflict like this, if they have an international indictment hanging over their head," concurs Steven Groves of the Heritage Foundation. And if Qaddafi did step aside and accept exile, a deal would have to address his likely insistence on being shielded from arrest (LAT), which would effectively weaken international justice. The ICC warrant could serve as a "bargaining chip" in negotiations over ending Libya's civil war, writes Max Fisher on TheAtlantic.com, "but it's not quite international justice in the legal sense of the term."
"The arrest of one or more of these perpetrators and their transfer to The Hague would make the public perceive the ICC as a real player," writes David Kaye, executive director of the UCLA School of Law International Human Rights Program, in Foreign Affairs. "But a bad outcome--no arrest, continued atrocities, a safe haven, or something else for the Libya three--could further ingrain in the international community an image of the court as more of a tool than a valuable end in itself."
Selected Analysis
The ICC must place greater emphasis on strengthening the national justice systems of countries where atrocities have occurred, writes David Kaye. He argues in this CFR Special Report that accountability should be integrated into building rule of law after a conflict.
"International criminal tribunals are rife with shortcomings--and should remain only a secondary option, when local forms of delivering justice are impossible," writes CFR's Stewart M. Patrick on his blog, The Internationalist.
The ICC must decide how it will deal with aggression, a crime listed in the Rome statute. Trying to identify aggressors could politicize the court and undermine its credibility, says the Economist
===============
================
====================
Pros and Cons of issuing arrest warrant for Gaddafi
A Gaddafi Arrest Warrant Raises the Stakes in Libya
By Vivienne Walt Monday, June 27, 2011
Question presented
It remains unclear whether the ICC warrants will speed an end to the war by accelerating the breakup of the regime, through the isolation of the Gaddafis, or will deepen its defiance by cutting off lines of retreat.
Enforcement in terms of arrest
Under the international court's rules, the Libyan regime is now responsible for rounding up the men and sending them to The Hague for trial. "One does not need to be a law professor to understand the unlikely scenario of the Libyan authorities to act on this," says Richard Dicker, Human Rights Watch's international justice program director
(DO- “under the international court’s rule” ?? Libya is not a state party to the Rome Statute. Why Libya is “under the court’s rule” ? Libya is under article 25 of the U.N. Charter, at best.)
Ineffectiveness of the ICC
Despite billions in funding, the court has failed to convict a single defendant in its eight-year history. Its arrest warrant against Sudan's President Bashir was issued in March, 2009; more than two years later, the Sudanese leader is still in power and even traveling internationally
If NATO finally orders in ground forces — which it has, until now, vowed not to do — those forces could be obligated to arrest the three men should they be captured by countries that recognize the ICC. (The U.S. does not recognize the court.)
And if Gaddafi finally agrees to exile, he is now barred from going to any country which has ratified the ICC. There are still plenty of destinations which would welcome him, however, including Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, Angola and North Korea. And, says Dicker, "He could live in suburban Washington D.C., since the U.S. would have no obligation to arrest him."
ICC Warrant: Political value but no certainty of a trial. Analysis by Ray Moseley
Monday, 27 June 2011
The International Criminal Court’s action on Monday in issuing an arrest warrant for Colonel Muammar Qaddafi is primarily of political and psychological significance at this point.
It further isolates the Libyan ruler and dramatizes the illegitimacy of his regime in the eyes of most of the world, but does not ensure he will appear in the dock at The Hague any time soon—if ever.
The move is not without controversy. While many would argue that the international community has a moral and legal obligation to make the colonel accountable for crimes against his own people, (vs.) some experts maintain that the arrest warrants will only give him greater incentive to try to hang onto power. In short, they question the timing, not the action itself.
Colonel Qaddafi’s options are in any case limited. Either he wins his battle to stay in power (most unlikely), dies fighting, or seeks refuge in one of the few countries willing to give him sanctuary and to defy the will of the court. He has consistently maintained he will never leave Libya.
ICC thus far
The case is certainly the most important one to come before the court in its nine-year existence. Until Monday it had indicted 23 people, with proceedings under way against 21 of them. Arrest warrants had been issued for 14 persons and summonses to nine others. But so far not a single individual has been convicted by the court.
The current cases mostly relate to people in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Central African Republic.
Israel and Sudan have joined the US in “unsigning” the accords establishing the court, meaning they have no intention of ever accepting its jurisdiction against their nationals.
(Ray Moseley is a London-based former chief European correspondent of the Chicago Tribune and has worked extensively in the Middle East. He can be reached at rnmoseley@aol.com.)
International Criminal Court issues arrest warrant for Gadhafi
By the CNN Wire Staff , June 27, 2011
Libya is not a signatory to the Rome Statute that established the international court's authority, and the court does not have the power to enter Libya and arrest the leaders.
(DO- does it mean that the court would have authority to enter Libya if she were a state party to the Rome Statute ? I would be surprised if the court is empowered to physically enter a member state. Even the U.S. Security Council is only empowered to impose sanction to enforce its decision. Does the ICC has an authority equivalent to Article 42 of the U.N. Charter? )
The U.N. Security Council referred the matter to the ICC through a resolution February 26, following widespread complaints about Gadhafi's efforts to crush a rebellion. The resolution said that, while "states not party to the Rome Statute have no obligations under the statute, the Security Council urged all states and concerned regional and other international organisations to cooperate fully with the court and the prosecutor."
Michael Rubin, an analyst with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said the court's move could damage efforts to get Gadhafi to end his 42-year reign, because he would not seek refuge in a country that is a party or signatory to the Rome Statute.
Fairness (double standard)
While the ICC decision is justified, Ahmida said, cynics in the region will ask why Gadhafi was selected and not others. "Why not (former Egyptian President Hosni) Mubarak? Why not (former Tunisian President Zine El-Abidine Ben) Ali?" Mubarak and Ali both gave up power following protests in their countries. "The court is selecting some dictators to indict, and being silent about others. That may be the biggest issue for the court," Ahmida said. Ali Ahmida, an analyst at the University of New England who was born in Libya
Libya: Warrants Send Strong Message to Abusive Leaders
Pursuit of Justice No Barrier to Lasting Peace , JUNE 27, 2011
it is unlikely that there is a connection ** between the ICC investigation (arrest warrant) and Gaddafi's refusal to step down, Human Rights Watch said.
The record from other conflicts also shows that arrest warrants for senior leaders can actually strengthen peace efforts by stigmatizing those who stand in the way of conflict resolution. For example, the indictments of Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia are credited with keeping them sidelined during the Dayton peace talks, which led to the end of the Bosnian war.
"As a judicial undertaking, the court's work is distinct from the military and diplomatic initiatives unfolding in Libya and it would be a mistake to conflate them," Dicker said. "Justice, to be credible, must run its independent course."
Because the ICC has no police force of its own, it depends on national authorities to make arrests on its behalf. Resolution 1970 requires the Libyan authorities to cooperate fully with the court. In April, the opposition authority in Libya, the Interim Transitional National Council, promised to cooperate with the ICC in a letter to the Prosecutor's Office.
Any suspect who is arrested or who surrenders to the court has an opportunity to object to the charges and to challenge the evidence in a "confirmation of charges" hearing.
Security Council resolution 1970 says that nationals from states outside Libya that are not parties to the ICC statute are not subject to ICC jurisdiction for all alleged acts arising out of operations in Libya established or authorized by the Security Council.
Resolution 1973, which authorizes member states "to take all necessary measures" to protect civilians in Libya
Against warrant
This arrest warrant could make Gaddafi more dangerous
The international criminal court's decision to charge the Libyan leader means he has nowhere to go. He may simply dig in
Simon Tisdall , Monday 27 June 2011
Encourage him to dig in
But far from hastening his removal from power, the court's demarche may reinforce Gaddafi's determination to stay and fight to the bitter end.
No longer negotiation
It's an obvious divide-and-rule tactic, but it may slowly be having a cumulative effect. Reports this week of secret talks in Tunisia involving senior Libyan cabinet members, high-profile defections and a renewed offer by the regime spokesman (later partially withdrawn) to put Gaddafi's continued tenure to a popular vote have encouraged those looking for fatal cracks in the Tripoli edifice. Welcoming the warrants, a rebel spokesman suggested they meant Gaddafi was finished and there was no longer any point in even trying to negotiate with a "war criminal" regime.
Whether his removal is a key success ; again Africa ?
As usual, there is a large dose of unreality and wishful thinking about all this. The ICC's action could easily backfire, as have other aspects of Libyan policy. The court's personal targeting of Gaddafi will revive questions about the wisdom of the Anglo-French-US approach (distinct from that of Nato) of making his removal from power the key measure of success in Libya.
It will also fuel claims that the ICC is only interested in pursuing African leaders, as in Sudan and Kenya, and that the US in particular (which is not a party to the ICC) is guilty of double standards.
The UNSCR is not a basis for his removal (ICC warrant) ;
The UN security council resolution authorising military intervention was silent on the issue of Gaddafi's status. It had to be. If the resolution had been openly portrayed as authorising regime change, or a de facto assassination, it would certainly have been vetoed by Russia or China or both.
Only cornered him
The ICC has added its weight to attempts to corner Gaddafi. But cornered, he is rendered all the more dangerous.
Libya's Qaddafi charged with war crimes: a help or hindrance to NATO?
By Howard LaFranchi, Staff writer / June 27, 2011
If anything, the international court’s action may result in an even more drawn-out Libyan conflict. It may serve to reinforce Qaddafi’s determination to outfox NATO warplanes and his resistance to any diplomatic solution entailing his departure from Libya, because he could perceive that giving up is now tantamount to arrest.
says Steven Groves, an expert in human rights and international institutions at the Heritage Foundation in Washington. “This is likely to make him more resolved to stick it out.”
“Heads of state are less inclined to consider a negotiated settlement, once they’re in an armed conflict like this, if they have an international indictment hanging over their head.”
(DO – worth noting that he is from Heritage ? )
