Centre de droit international - Equipe de droit pénal - ARC Strategic Litigation
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Centre de droit international – Equipe de droit pénal - ARC Strategic Litigation
Colloquium
The ICC Statutes reaches 20: Critical and interdisciplinary approaches
***
Call for papers
In 2018, the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC) celebrates its
twentieth birthday. The experience of the past two decades contradicts the sceptics who, in
1998, predicted an international convention destined to remain a dead letter. Since the
beginning of the ICC's activity (in July 2002) many judicial developments have taken place
and, in recent years, substantive decisions and judgements have been handed down at a slow
but significant pace. The Court has tried 10 persons, 14 cases are ongoing in 11 currently
open situations and the Office of the Prosecutor is working on 10 preliminary examinations1.
Inactivity no longer seems to be an acceptable criticism today.
Nevertheless, important criticisms remain. The international and interdisciplinary colloquium
that will be held in December 2018 intends to focus specifically on these criticisms. The aim
of the colloquium is not to revisit 20 years of victories, advances, questions, mistakes,
contradictions or failures, but to highlight and question fundamental criticisms directed at the
Court.
Today's criticisms of the ICC are manifold, interdisciplinary, heterogeneous and polymorphic.
The few general reflections that we make here are based on a threefold division of these
criticisms.
Firstly, criticisms can be divided into legal/technical, political/economic or
sociological/anthropological. A stricto sensu legal approach must of course be taken into
account2. However, in our view, other approaches – relating to legal theory, sociological,
anthropological, political, linguistic, historical, etc. – also need to be considered. This will
enable the colloquium to give a voice to the actors of international criminal justice, whether
they are active within the ICC institution, alongside, outside or against it. The need to resort
to other approaches allows the participants to assess criticisms different from the strictly
technical legal ones.
The second division relates to what may be called the “quality” of the criticisms: in
Watzlawick's terms3, these can be located in or out of the “fly-bottle”. In the former case, they
do not aspire to create an alternative better than the ICC (or, more generally, criminal law) but
to improve the ICC itself (or criminal law). Conversely, in the second case, the criticisms do
not seek to improve the Court (or criminal law) but to create an alternative better than the
Court (or criminal law).
1
See ICC website.
2
On the different approaches, see O. CORTEN, Méthodologie du droit international, Bruxelles, Editions de l’Université de
Bruxelles, 2009.
3
P. WATZLAWICK, « La mouche et la bouteille à mouches », L’invention de la réalité, Paris, Seuil, 1988, under the direction
of P. Watzlawick, p. 269 – 276.
1
Centre de droit international – Equipe de droit pénal - ARC Strategic Litigation
Finally, the third division focuses on the actors formulating the criticisms. Here we can
highlight two categories of actors: on the one hand, those who are active directly within the
ICC institution (judges4, their assistants5, prosecutors6, some defence lawyers7, defendants8,
non-governmental organisations acting for or within the ICC - mainly NGOs defending or
representing victims9 - or victims themselves); on the other hand, those actors who operate
outside the ICC institution (mainly states or academics10).
It goes without saying that these divisions are not watertight and can overlap: internal
criticisms can be expressed by external actors, sociological criticisms can be pronounced by
lawyers, and so on. Nevertheless, the proposed divisions can be useful for drawing up a
catalogue or a typology of existing criticisms. This is what we propose to do by holding an
international colloquium bringing together the different actors and critics in order to better
define the contours, reveal the aims and appreciate the relevance of the criticisms directed at
the Court.
The colloquium will centre on the first division by devoting half a day to the criticisms of
each of the approaches identified, namely technical/legal (A), political/economic (B), and
sociological/anthropological (C).
A. Technical/legal approaches
First of all, criticisms can be of a technical/legal nature. Thus, several of the principles of
criminal law have been used to criticize the Court for failing to comply with them: the
principle of legality11, the ne bis in idem principle12, the principle of individualisation of the
sentence (or the question relating to the forms of individual responsibility as opposed to the
commission of collective crimes13), the rapidity of proceedings14, respect for human rights
(both for the victims - right to participate in criminal proceedings15 - and for the defendants -
4
See, e.g., R. BLATTMAN et K. BOWMAN, « Achievements and Problems of the International Criminal Court: A View From
Within », J Int Criminal Justice, vol. 6, September 2008, p.711 – 730 ; B. COTTE, « La CPI. L’expérience d’un magistrat
français », Revue des droits de l’Homme, Vol. 11, 2017.
5
Professionals working at the Court aside from Judges also publish scholarly articles ; see, e.g., G. BITTI, « La Cour pénale
internationale a dix ans, quel bilan judiciaire », Semaine juridique, suppl. N°52, 24 décembre 2012, p.7-10
6
C. DEL PONTE, La traque, les criminels de guerre et moi, Paris, Héloïse d'Ormesson, 2009.
7
V. COURELLE-LABROUSSE, « Intervenir en défense devant les juridictions internationales pénales. Un témoignage »,
présentation faite lors des Deuxièmes journées de la justice internationale pénale, Université Paris II, 2 et 3 février 2017.
8
M. RAUSCHENBACH, D. SCALIA et C. STAERKLE, « Paroles d’accusés sur la légitimité de la justice internationale pénale »,
Revue de science criminelle et de droit pénal comparé, 3, 2012, pp. 727-745 ; I. Delpla, La justice des gens, Enquêtes dans la
Bosnie des nouvelles après-guerres, Rennes, PUR, 2014.
9
For example, Avocats sans frontières or International Federation for Human Rights.
10
See. J. PIERET et M.-L. HEBERT-DOLBEC (ed.), « Dossier : La justice pénale internationale en tant que projet critique »,
Champ pénal/Penal Field, Vol XIII, 2016.
11
M. BOOT, Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity, War Crimes: Nullum Crimen Sine Lege and the Subject Matter
Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, Anvers, Intersentia, 2002; D. SCALIA, Du principe de légalité des peines en
droit international pénal, Bruxelles, Bruylant, 2011.
12
D. BERNARD, Juger et juger encore les crimes internationaux : Etude du principe ne bis in idem, Bruxelles, Bruylant,
2014.
13
O. de FROUVILLE (ed), Punir les crimes de masse : entreprise criminelle commune ou co-action ?, Bruxelles,
Bruylant,2012 ; F. MEGRET, « Les angles mort de la responsabilité pénal individuel en droit international pénal », RIEJ, Vol.
71, 2013, pp. 83-136 ; M.A. DRUMBL, « Restorative Justice and Collective Responsibility: Lessons for and from the
Rwandan Genocide », Contemporary Justice Review, vol. 5, 2002, pp. 5‑22.
14
B. DUERR, « How fair are trials at the International Criminal Court ? Three examples of concern », 21 avril 2016, Fair
Trials, voy. https://www.fairtrials.org/how-fair-are-trials-at-the-international-criminal-court-3-examples-of-concern/
15
L. MOFFETT, « Meaningful and Effective ? Considering Victim’s Interests Through Participation at the International
Criminal Court », Criminal Law Forum, vol. 26, 2015, pp. 255-289.
2Centre de droit international – Equipe de droit pénal - ARC Strategic Litigation
right of defence16) or the question of the severity of penalties (some advocating, for example,
for the application of the death penalty by the ICC)17.
B. Political/economic approaches
Criticisms can then be made at the political or economic level. Here, one of the first criticisms
levelled at the ICC is its ineffectiveness18. This criticism often highlights the fact that, in 20
years, the Court has handed down only a few substantive judgments and only a few decisions
on reparations. At the same time, it is often argued that the Court does not have any police (or
coercive force of any kind) and must therefore rely on States – which are not always co-
operative, even despite having ratified the Rome Statute – for the enforcement of many
decisions, including for the arrest of persons subject to arrest warrants. The cases concerning
Simone Gbagbo, Saïf Gaddafi and the President of Sudan Al Bashir are symptomatic: in the
first two cases, States refused to hand them over to the ICC; in the last case, States (members
or not of the ICC) refused to arrest an incumbent Head of State.
At the same time, the ICC has also been singled out for its slowness: lengthy investigations,
certain situations that have been going on for more than 10 years without any cases being
opened, trials that have stalled for more than 12 years, and decisions on reparations that are
still pending.
Along the same lines, the Court is also criticised for the criminal policy implemented by the
Office of the Prosecutor19. This criminal policy has been the subject of much debate since the
Court's creation: too African-oriented (i.e. directed against people from the African
continent), too directed against states of the South, and above all, mainly against low-level
offenders or non-leaders. This criticism is coupled with difficulties in understanding the
Prosecutor’s criminal policy, as demonstrated by the Mavi Marmara case. Thus, the ICC is
accused of being first and foremost a political body, i.e., a court for powerful states or a court
whose activities are guided by opaque political interests. Some scholars also highlight the
power struggle within and vis-à-vis the ICC20.
Finally, these political criticisms are coupled with criticisms of an economic nature: the
financial cost of the Court. With a budget of approximately $140 million in 2016, the Court is
regularly denounced because the cost of each case appears to be excessively high21.
C. Sociological/anthropological approaches
Regarding sociological or anthropological criticisms, they are mainly linked to the legitimacy
of the Court. This legitimacy is evaluated in terms of purposes legitimacy 22 ,
16
See, e.g., K. J. HELLER, « ‘A Stick to Hit the Accused With’ : The Legal Recharacterization of Facts under Regulation
55 », in C. STAHN (ed.), The Law and Practice of the International Criminal Court, Oxford, OUP, 2015, pp. 993 ff.
17
See the negotiations in Rome.
18
B. COTTE, « La CPI. L’expérience d’un magistrat français », Revue des droits de l’Homme, Vol. 11, 2017, § 40 ; JB
JEANGENE VILMER, Pas de justice sans paix, Paris, SciencePo, 2001.
19
See for example, H. KÖCHLER, « Justice and Realpolitik : The Predicament of the International Criminal Court », Chinese
J. Intl. L., vol. 16, 2017, pp. 1-19.
20
C. SCHWÖBEL, Critical Approaches on International Criminal Law : An Introduction, Cambridge, Routledge, 2014.
21
B. COTTE, « La CPI. L’expérience d’un magistrat français », Revue des droits de l’Homme, Vol. 11, 2017.
22
A. CASSESE, « The legitimacy of International Criminal Tribunals and the Current Prospects of International Criminal
Justice », Leiden Journal of International Law, Vol. 25, 2011, pp. 491-501 ; T. TRÈVES, « Aspects of Legitimacy of
3Centre de droit international – Equipe de droit pénal - ARC Strategic Litigation
representativeness23, universality of defended values or messages. In this respect, the ICC's
lack of universality is often denounced. How can the ICC claim to be universal when the
majority of the world's population does not fall within its jurisdiction due to the lack of
ratification of its Statute by important states (both politically and in terms of population size)?
On the other hand, sociological criticisms denounce the “westernization” of the criminal
justice process – with which they contrast the so-called traditional forms of justice such as the
Gacaca courts in Rwanda or the Ubushigantahe courts in Burundi. Sociological criticisms also
address, albeit more rarely, issues of power and domination within the ICC itself24.
Finally, the anthropological or sociological approaches which are critical of the ICC (or of
international criminal law) regularly emphasize the negative consideration of victims25 or
defendants26, as well as the evaluation of professionals working in the ICC27.
Provisional Conference Plan
The Conference - bilingual English/French (without interpretation) - will be held at the ULB
on 3-4 December 2018.
Several roundtables (according to the number of participants) will be organized. The objective
is to have a multidisciplinary discussion, mixing different positions (internal/external) and
mixing practitioners, observers and academics. Also, the discussions will be transcribed
(verbatim). The records of the discussions as well as the conclusions of the presidents of the
different panels will be published after the colloquium.
***
Proposals (in French or English) not exceeding 500 words, accompanied by a short bio (in
one single document) must be sent no later than 31 May 2018 to Vaios Koutroulis and
Damien Scalia, professors at the Université Libre de Bruxelles at the following address: arc-
strategic-litigation@ulb.ac.be
The selected participants will be informed by June 15, 2018. Accommodation and catering
costs are covered.
Decisions of International Courts and Tribunals », in R. WOLFRUM & V. RÖBEN (eds), Legitimacy in International Law, NY,
Springer, 2008, pp. 169-188.
23
I. TALLGREN, « The Sensibility and Sense in International Criminal Law », EJIL, 13, 3 2002, pp. 561-595.
24
P.-Y. CONDÉ, « Quatre témoignages sur la justice pénale internationale : entre ordre public international et politiques de
justice », Droit et société, Vol. 3, 2004, pp. 567-594.; E. Claverie, « La Violence, le procès, et la Justification, Scènes
d’audience au TPIY », Retour sur De la Justification, Actes - Colloque de Cerisy, Economica, 2009.
25
G. ELCHEROTH & D. SPINI, Public support for the prosecution of human rights violations in the former Yugoslavia, in
Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, Vol. 2, 15, 2009, pp. 189-214; S. PARMENTIER & E. WEITEKAMP, «
Punishing perpetrators or seeking truth for victims: What does the population in Serbia think about dealing with war
crimes?», International Criminal Law Review, Vol. 13, 1, 2013, pp. 43-62; S. PARMENTIER et al., « Repairing the harm of
victims after violent conflict: Empirical findings from Serbia », International Review of Victimology, Vol. 20(1), 2014, pp.
85-99.
26
M.-S. DEVRESSE & D. SCALIA, « Hearing Tried People in International Criminal Justice: Sympathy for the Devil? »,
International Criminal Law Review, Vol. 16, 5, 2016, pp. 796-825.
27
C. M. BAYLISS & E. O. POLK, « Attorneys’ Self-Reported Perspectives and Criteria for Requesting Competency
Evaluations in Criminal Defense Cases », Criminal Justice Review, pp. 30, 2005, pp. 312-324 ; J. R. CENCICH, « International
Criminal Investigations of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity: A War Crimes Investigator's Perspective », ICJR, Vol.
11, 2, 2009, pp. 175-191.
4You can also read
