Governance of the International Criminal Court criticised by US Human Rights Watch
Friday, September 23rd, 2011
The United Nations General Assembly adopted the 1998 Rome Statute by a vote of 120 to 7, with 21 countries abstaining. Seven countries voted against the treaty: Iraq, Israel, Libya, China, Qatar, Yemen and the US.
Following years of negotiations, the International Criminal Court was set up to prosecute individuals accused of genocide and other serious international crimes. The statute requires judicial candidates to have experience of criminal proceedings or of international law and qualifications that would enable them to take up a place at their country’s highest court. The ICC, based in The Hague, Netherlands, began work in 2002.
*
In terms not quoted verbatim on this site, the US Human Rights Watch spokesman, Richard Dicker, questioned the competence of the court’s judges and the polling process which appoints them.
Philippe Sands, a barrister specialising in international law, who has written a book on the election of judges to international courts found that ‘vote-trading, campaigning, and regional politicking’ was common. That is not surprising as this is the norm in national and international politics and sport.
It has also been criticised for including candidates with insufficient qualifications. Japan, which contributed a fifth of this year’s annual budget of €103.6m ($142.7m), previously successfully nominated two judges who were not qualified lawyers.
This criticism appears to be ill-founded as the Rome statute requires two categories of judges: those with experience in criminal proceedings as judges and prosecutors (list A) and those with expertise in international law (list B), in order to achieve a delicate balance between criminal law and international law.
Another concern flagged by the South Korean president of the court, Sang-Hyun Song in correspondence seen by the Financial Times is that some who are elected in December may not be able to start work straight away. The British candidate, Howard Morrison, is currently presiding over the trial at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia which is not expected to finish until 2014.
Masahiro Mikami, Director of the International Legal Affairs Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan responded to the crtiscism of Judge Kuniko Ozaki of Japan, who serves at the ICC and is not a qualified lawyer.
He explained that Judge Ozaki is a list B judge: “She worked as a legal adviser to the Japanese government and negotiated the Rome statute. She also used to be a university professor of international law at one of the best law schools in Japan. Added to this background, which is common among list B judges, was her unique experience as director for treaty affairs in the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, a key organisation in the UN system dealing with criminal law. In the ICC, Judge Ozaki has been a very active Trial Chamber judge, and her legal opinions expressed in various court decisions have been highly regarded inside and outside the court.”
The ICC recognises that governance can be improved at the court and has set up a group studying the issue, which will report at the December meeting of member states and the election.
Sources: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/96fbbd78-e529-11e0-bdb8-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1Ym9ICXlf
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/21de35c6-def7-11e0-9af3-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1YXUCI8Gs