International Law and Playing Our Part

The ICC is unable to fulfill its mandate. The Organization cannot manage to arrest a man known for committing genocide, because it has no means of enforcement of its decisions. This is devastating to its cause and its reputation.

The whole point of such an organization is to deter humans from acting out such inhumane and widespread campaigns as genocide. It is to balance against powerful individuals who feel they have no constraints under national law. This is especially the case for leaders who incite acts of terrorism against their citizens.

Leaders, however, are extremely difficult to arrest once and international warrant has been passed by the jury. They are not likely to be turned in on their own soil, so the ICC has to wait for them to leave. Even once they leave, it is unlikely that a non-signatory of the Rome Statute will turn them over and risk aggrivating their political relationship with the accused criminal's government.

This is especially a problem with people from regions of the world that feel bombarded by Western principles and culture. Arab people/countries and Latin American people/countries tend to stick together when culturally "attacked" by the West. They have a sort of brotherhood that prevents such violations of trust amongst them. One country would not want to be shunned by their brotherhood for turning one of their kind over to the "other" side.

They tend to look the other way when one of their own is committing atrocious acts. They do this to ensure they receive the same allegiance when they themselves resort to such acts. In other words, the Ethiopian leader will not turn over Al-Bashir, expecting the same from Sudan if he had a ICC warrant out for his arrest.

So how do we fix a world divided by culture? How do we overcome such obstacles to IL as the debate over universalism and relativism? These problems have yet to be solved, but that does not mean all hope is lost. We must keep spreading the word about Darfur. We must encourage our own countries (USA) to sign on to the statute and help enforce the decisions of ICC. We must keep pushing for the people living in camps in Darfur. We must keep fighting for the people who have yet to be victimized at the hand of those more powerful than them. We have to keep International Law alive and revive its credibility!

Challenging ICC and International Law

How effective or ineffective is the ICC?

The biggest obstacle to implementing International Law (IL) acted out through supranational authorities such as the International Criminal Court and other temporary criminal tribunals is that they have no way to enforce their decisions. This has become a great barrier to the Darfur case, especially because the latest jury decided to issue an arrest warrant for Omar Al-Bashir, the leader of Sudan.

This is the first time the court has ever issued the arrest of a standing head-of-state, and the world is unsure what will happen next. It has been made clear that the government of Sudan will not be handing their leader over to the court, so what is the next step?

The ICC hoped that it would receive the cooperation of other African countries, especially those signatories to the Rome Statute. You can see those signatories and the exact demands of this statute on the ICC website. Al-Bashir, however, remains a free man.

The defiant Sudanese leader paid a visit to Hosni Mubarak, the head of Egypt. They discussed the implications of the ICC warrant. Mubarak had originally condemned the ruling on the grounds that it would "sabotage peace efforts in the turbulent region".

Cairo was not A-Bashir's first appearance outside his own country. He traveled to Eritrea two days before on March 2nd. In doing this, he is damaging the image of ICC and making it appear incompetent. This may affect the court's ability to enforce future decisions and pinpoints the weakness of IL.

Egypt and Eritrea are only two of many countries in the Arab League and AU who have protested the ICC's actions. Their stance combined with that of Washington to "steer clear" of the issue has not given the ICC much credibility. It may be a long time before the ICC can even fulfill this empty threat.

So my question is, was it a good idea to issue this warrant, or has it only slowed progress in the region? It does not help the court's image to make promises it cannot keep, so where has this decision brought them?

Yet again, on 26 March, Al-Bashir left Cairo for Ethiopia. Will he continue to travel freely about with no threats of arrest? These actions bring the effectiveness of the ICC and the entire system of IL under to question and put the system under global scrutiny.