The International Criminal Court (ICC) is in trouble. For commentators and observers of the Tribunal, the field of international criminal justice is in a situation where one crisis seems to lead to the next.‘Eternal crisis’. After the court was briefly ‘activated’ in response to a rapid response to a full-scale Russian invasion in 2022. UkraineIn recent events, investigations into the situation in Palestine have led to a backlash and politicization of the country, including from so-called liberal democracies. Israel And America.
At the same time, the liberal international order faces challenges of its own. A dictatorship is developingCurrently, 70% of the world’s population lives under them. This means that the level of democracy has returned to its 1989 level. The liberal democratic progress of the past 30 years is over. Without exploring what this means for the prospects for peace or increased violence, what this means for the future of international criminal justice in an increasingly authoritarian world, given that the ICC relies entirely on state cooperation to do its work. It raises questions about whether we can have it. For example, to effectively investigate international crimes, courts must have access to the territory, the victims and the witness community, including (state) security provisions for staff. Because the courthouse does not have its own police force, it also relies on the state to execute arrest warrants. However, as we know, state cooperation with the ICC is uneven and unstable at best. So the key question is: non-state actors It can fill at least some of the gaps left by lack of state support and lack of cooperation with the courts. The remainder of this article addresses some of the key issues regarding the past and present role of civil society in the pursuit of international criminal justice and refers to recently published articles. International criminal law review.
Much of the early research on the ICC’s civil society involvement praised the extensive participation of NGOs at the 1998 Rome Conference, which established the ICC, and called the ICC ‘‘Global Civil Society Achievements’-courthouse’By the people, for the people‘. Since the ICC began operating in 2002, international human rights NGOs have been involved in agenda-setting conflicts, recording and investigating crimes, communicating with victims and victim communities, lobbying states for political and financial support, and ratifying ICC statutes in courts and domestic judicial systems. Advocacy for implementation, capacity building for international justice – the list is endless. International human rights NGOs were integrated. Advocates for international criminal justice As much as it becomes part of the day-to-day functioning of the court.
RecentlyNew and additional ‘types’ of NGOs and civil society actors are gaining prominence in the field of international criminal justice, as evidenced by the continued development of accountability efforts for international crimes in Syria and Ukraine.
Given the lack of ICC jurisdiction over the Syrian conflict, a variety of civil society actors, including international organizations and local NGOs, have worked to collect and preserve information and document and build cases. Accountability for international crimes committed in SyriaIncluding the country itself. These include local NGOs such as the Syrian Network for Human Rights and documentation actors such as the Center for the Documentation of Violations established by Syrians soon after the start of the uprising, Bellingcat, the UN Committee on Syria, the International, Ipartial, and Independent Mechanism (IIIM), and the International Commission on Justice and Accountability ( CIJA).
In the past, local and international NGOs have been involved in documenting international crimes, including the ICTY and ICTR, but this is something qualitatively new for actors like CIJA working in the field of international justice. This is evidence that the privatization of international criminal justice is increasing.Break away from the practice of conducting international crime investigations led by public institutions.‘. Because Syria is not a member of the ICC, is a closed dictatorship, and the refusal of China and Russia to allow the Security Council to refer the situation to the ICC, jurisdictional gaps in international criminal justice have paved the way for these types of crimes to occur. ‘Entrepreneurial Definition‘. However, privatization of international criminal justice may raise accountability issues. It is noteworthy that these models rely on ‘local capacity’ within the authoritarian state, namely dissidents and local NGOs.
Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine triggered an unprecedented international (Western) mobilization to investigate and prosecute war crimes. Currently, a variety of national and international NGOs are involved in collecting, documenting, investigating and preparing large amounts of war crimes data for prosecution in various courts, legal bodies and jurisdictions. In addition to the contributions of Western countries and a number of international organizations, including the ICC and Eurojust, domestic NGOs in Ukraine are deeply involved in documenting Russian war crimes. Documents of war crimes are also being crowdsourced among the Ukrainian population, and the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine has established a dedicated unit. homepage It is a place where citizens can register and document war crimes.
This ‘democratization’ of domestic NGOs and civil society actors engaging in international crime documentation is facilitated by digital technologies and the availability of digital evidence, such as open source information. Although significant challenges remain in using Investigating new technologies and open sourcesTheir potential, especially in relation to the digital divide, appears to be particularly useful for local NGOs by enabling access to hard-to-reach areas and helping to counter national narratives. But importantly, crowdsourcing research depends on the presence of advanced digital infrastructure, something that Ukraine has but many other ICC context countries do not have.
In short, what we are seeing within the international criminal justice ecosystem is an increasingly specialized and transnational private industry ready to collect evidence and prepare cases for prosecution in universal jurisdiction or, when time permits, international criminal courts. This means that the rising tide of authoritarianism around the world goes hand in hand with significant changes in civil society actors and activities participating in the ICC. These observable changes are driven by technological advances and, crucially, opportunities arising from lack of jurisdiction and lack of national cooperation with the ICC. As civil society participation in the ICC and international criminal justice becomes more widespread (with non-profit investigative organizations, private technology companies, and local NGOs focusing on documentation and investigation rather than advocacy), further investigation is needed, especially on: Let us look at what all this means for the ICC and the broader pursuit of international criminal justice.
First, the diversification of civil society actors at the ICC reflects broader trends in the international criminal justice ecosystem. The ICC was originally designed by its founders to replace ad hoc judicial bodies dealing with specific situations, and for a time it represented the pinnacle of international criminal accountability. Today, this high position in the international criminal liability hierarchy is increasingly challenged by the proliferation of ad hoc, locally specific and quasi-judicial ‘accountability’ regimes. A ‘new generation’ of UN accountability mechanisms for Syria, Myanmar and Daesh would be mandated to ‘collect, collate, analyze and preserve evidence of international crimes in accordance with criminal justice standards and make this evidence available for domestic or international prosecutions’. has been granted.D’Alessandra et al. 2021).
In response to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the EU, together with EuroJust, significantly expanded the collection, processing and storage of evidence. For example, through the International Center for the Prosecution of Crimes of Aggression against Ukraine. Domestic or legal prosecution is expected in the future. This is called ‘stakeholder reorientation’.responsibility‘ In the international criminal justice ecosystem, this parallels the increasing use of universal jurisdiction by domestic authorities in prosecuting international crimes, such as Daesh crimes committed in Syria by Syrian nationals but prosecuted in Germany. In other words, international criminal justice has become noticeably fragmented and decentralized, with the ICC giving up its hegemonic role in international criminal justice and increasingly being referred to and self-styled as a ‘capacity enhancer’. I was expected to have one.
Second, fragmentation of international criminal justice could make the investigation and prosecution of international crimes more effective because trials could be held under the universal jurisdiction of third countries. On the other hand, considering that the ICC does not have a monopoly on international criminal responsibility and that its institutional structure is powerless against state power, especially large state power, one may wonder what the future of the ICC will be. The emergence of new actors and the professionalization of civil society actors in documenting international crime ‘increasingly means that in the new international criminal justice ecosystem, domestic jurisdictions have emerged as the primary means of accountability, while non-standard institutions remain on the periphery of accountability schemes. I’m proving it.’ (Aksamitovska 2021). Moreover, questions may be raised about whether these accountability developments actually produce more ‘justice’ for local populations and civil society who (usually) seek international justice. You can actually see an expansion of type ”.definition of donor‘And to more clearly politicize the purpose of international criminal prosecution. Rather than asserting universality, we might add our voices to the liberal monologue in an increasingly authoritarian world.
Additional Resources on E-International Relations
