An Arab war-crimes
court for Syria
ARYEH NEIER, April 6,
2012 Friday
(gist) A war-crimes tribunal
run by the Arab League could be the solution to Syrian atrocities. + development of ICTY
The United States and
other governments don't want to intervene militarily in Syria. That's
understandable; hardly anyone wants another Middle East war.
In seeking other ways
to ensure that the Syrian government and its henchmen pay a price for
slaughtering their citizens, U.S. officials are seeking ways to bring them to
justice. A war crimes tribunal run by the Arab League could be the
solution. The experience of war-torn countries like Bosnia has proved that such
tribunals can work, if properly designed.
A war crimes tribunal
run by the Arab League is the only viable option to bring the butchers to
justice
Last weekend,
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said that the United States would
''support and train Syrian citizens working to document atrocities, identify
perpetrators, and safeguard evidence for future investigations and
prosecutions.'' A difficulty with this plan, however, is how to use the
evidence that is collected. Syria is not a party to the treaty for the
International Criminal Court in The Hague, and Russia and China would
most likely use their veto power to block any United Nations Security
Council effort to refer the case to the court.
To overcome such
obstructionism, another innovation is required: an Arab League tribunal to deal
with the crimes against humanity that are taking place in Syria. Such a
tribunal could have Arab judges, Arab prosecutors, Arab investigators and Arab
defense attorneys and conduct its proceedings in Arabic. The Arab League could
give it jurisdiction over crimes against humanity and war crimes as the treaty
for the International Criminal Court defines them. And such a court should have
jurisdiction over all crimes, including those committed by rebels. It is
essential to uphold the principle that, no matter the justice of the cause or
the crimes committed by one's opponents, all must be held to the same
standards.
Because it would take
time to establish such a tribunal and because there is an urgent need to stop
Syrian forces from committing more crimes, the Arab League could specify that prosecutions
for crimes committed after the resolution's adoption would have priority.
That would put the forces of Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad, on notice that
the surest way to end up in the dock is to persist in the crimes they have been
committing.
We should not grant
them impunity for crimes committed up to now. But the urgent need to prevent
further atrocities justifies giving them an incentive to stop. Of course, some
of those responsible for crimes would imagine that they would never be
apprehended and brought to justice. Yet the record of other international
tribunals makes it increasingly necessary for them to take such courts
seriously.
In case those
responsible imagine that they would not be apprehended or brought to justice,
ICTY could be a good example
Something similar took
place during the Bosnian war, which began 20 years ago this week. Neither the
administration of President George Bush nor that of President Bill Clinton was
ready to intervene militarily. But both expressed outrage at the crimes of
ethnic cleansing in that conflict. That led to American support for the
establishment of what became the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia. At the time (of establishment of ICTY), few took it seriously.
It had no capacity on
its own to get hold of those accused of crimes. Hardly anyone imagined that the
leading perpetrators could be brought to justice. Yet the court has been
remarkably successful. Of the 161 people on all sides of the Balkan wars
whom the court indicted for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide,
all were eventually apprehended and brought to The Hague except those who died
or had their indictments withdrawn; 64 were convicted and sentenced, and 13
were acquitted. The rest are appealing their convictions, are still on trial,
have died or have had their cases referred to courts at home.
Indeed, national
courts in Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia have conducted scores of high-quality
trials of lower-ranking defendants accused of war crimes.
As a result, most of
those principally responsible for the ghastliest crimes in the former
Yugoslavia, like the murder of 8,000 Muslim men and boys at Srebrenica in 1995,
have been forced to serve long prison sentences. A process that some initially
supported only as a substitute for more forceful action has turned out much
better than expected. It provided a substantial measure of justice in
the Balkan conflicts, and it has led to the establishment of several other ad
hoc international criminal tribunals and the International Criminal Court. And
it has contributed to national prosecutions, in many countries, of dictators,
warlords and guerrilla leaders responsible for crimes against humanity.
Establishing the
Balkan court in 1993 was an innovation in international law, and creating a
tribunal for Syria today would be a bold decision for the Arab League - one
that could ensure that those who committed atrocities would face consequences.
NOTES: is president of the Open Society
Foundations and the author, most recently, of ''The International Human
Rights Movement: A History.''
