2008 Woodie Awards
Justice, Canadian style
Josh Justice
Issue date: 2/12/03 Section: News
- Page 1 of 2 next >
by Josh Justice
With a Canadian flag in the background, Justice Louise Arbour of the Canadian Supreme Court greeted a nearly full crowd in the ICC auditorium on Feb. 5. There as part of the Graduate School’s Distinguished Lecturer Series, she focused her attention on an issue of rising importance in the international community, but one not often talked of in the United States, the International Criminal Court. Arbour then moved her attention from the merits of the Court to mention specific cases of international law and how the establishment of a set court and procedures might be able to assist in those cases. All the while, however, Arbour stressed that the success of the Court will not be in how many cases it will settle but rather in how few are presented.
The Court, approved by the Rome Statute in 1998, is an independent international judiciary body with the power to try and punish for crimes that are of the greatest international concern, such as genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. After 60 countries had ratified the Rome Statute, the Court was officially formed on July 1, 2002. Having its seat in The Hague, The Netherlands, the Court is meant as a permanent body that will be able to try criminals from a wide variety of conflicts, unlike the limited nature of former international courts. The Court even has the power to try criminals of states not signatory to the Rome Statue, if necessary. The Court, however, is not meant to weaken national courts; indeed, if a criminal is being properly prosecuted by a national court for his crimes, then the Court has no jurisdiction to take over the case. Only when an international criminal is not put on trial by any national court capable of doing so is the Court then allowed to take over the case and prosecute.
Arbour drilled the point into the audience that the preference in the Rome Statute for domestic prosecution will hopefully increase the likelihood of states prosecuting war crimes within their jurisdictions. Indeed, one of the great hopes for the Court is that its effects will extend far beyond the range of cases which it prosecutes and instead change states’ interests in international prosecution on the national level. Arbour referenced the United States as an example of how the Court can influence a much broader range of issues than its individual cases. Instead of isolating itself from the process and being wary of the Court at every step, Arbour felt that the United States should embrace the concept and take a leading role. With a position of power in the formation of the court, Arbour said in a very pragmatic statement, the United States could have shaped the court and made it more favorable to its own interests.
With a Canadian flag in the background, Justice Louise Arbour of the Canadian Supreme Court greeted a nearly full crowd in the ICC auditorium on Feb. 5. There as part of the Graduate School’s Distinguished Lecturer Series, she focused her attention on an issue of rising importance in the international community, but one not often talked of in the United States, the International Criminal Court. Arbour then moved her attention from the merits of the Court to mention specific cases of international law and how the establishment of a set court and procedures might be able to assist in those cases. All the while, however, Arbour stressed that the success of the Court will not be in how many cases it will settle but rather in how few are presented.
The Court, approved by the Rome Statute in 1998, is an independent international judiciary body with the power to try and punish for crimes that are of the greatest international concern, such as genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. After 60 countries had ratified the Rome Statute, the Court was officially formed on July 1, 2002. Having its seat in The Hague, The Netherlands, the Court is meant as a permanent body that will be able to try criminals from a wide variety of conflicts, unlike the limited nature of former international courts. The Court even has the power to try criminals of states not signatory to the Rome Statue, if necessary. The Court, however, is not meant to weaken national courts; indeed, if a criminal is being properly prosecuted by a national court for his crimes, then the Court has no jurisdiction to take over the case. Only when an international criminal is not put on trial by any national court capable of doing so is the Court then allowed to take over the case and prosecute.
Arbour drilled the point into the audience that the preference in the Rome Statute for domestic prosecution will hopefully increase the likelihood of states prosecuting war crimes within their jurisdictions. Indeed, one of the great hopes for the Court is that its effects will extend far beyond the range of cases which it prosecutes and instead change states’ interests in international prosecution on the national level. Arbour referenced the United States as an example of how the Court can influence a much broader range of issues than its individual cases. Instead of isolating itself from the process and being wary of the Court at every step, Arbour felt that the United States should embrace the concept and take a leading role. With a position of power in the formation of the court, Arbour said in a very pragmatic statement, the United States could have shaped the court and made it more favorable to its own interests.