Court Of Injustice

TOGETHER against the rest of the world were a host of unlikely allies: India and Pakistan, the US and Libya, besides China, Israel and Russia. The traditional rivals were united in opposition to the formation of an international criminal court, though for very different reasons.

After five weeks of high-strung negotiations by 160 nations, India abstained from voting for the formation of the international criminal court (ICC) in Rome on July 17. The treaty was finally adopted, the tally: 120 for, seven against, 21 abstentions and 12 which did not vote at all. The court, to be set up in The Hague, Holland, after 60 nations have ratified it, will be a permanent tribunal to try "serious crimes of international concern," including genocide, war crimes, aggression and crimes against humanity. All earlier international tribunals, from Nuremberg to those set up to try the mass murderers in Rwanda and former Yugoslavia, were formed on ad-hoc basis, and the UN has long argued that a permanent tribunal would have a faster reaction time.

At a time when stormtroopers lace up their boots worldwide and ethnic strife continues to kill, maim and displace millions, what made India reject a forum for the warmongers to be tried and punished? Simple: The treaty is flawed, and does not address India's concerns.

For one, India's demand that the use of weapons of mass destruction—nuclear, chemical or biological—be brought under the court's purview was crushed by an overwhelming majority. The Indian argument: it would be strange if the ICC was created with the precedent that the use of weapons of mass destruction was not a war crime, whereas the use of dum-dum bullets was.

India also objects to the UN Security Council being allowed to refer cases to the ICC, block cases before the court, and bind even non-signatory states to accept the court's mandate. This gives the Security Council the power to influence the court even though some of the Council's members, for instance China and the US, have not even signed the treaty.

In a paper explaining India's position, Dilip Lahiri, additional secretary (UN) in the MEA, and India's chief negotiator in Rome, said: "The power to block is in some ways even harder to understand or accept.... it is argued that maintenance of international peace and security may require that those who have committed these crimes should be permitted to escape justice, if the Council so decrees. The moment this argument is conceded, the Conference has accepted the proposition that justice could undermine international peace and security."

바카라 웹사이트Moreover, the power to bind non-signatories to the treaty, flies in the face of every international law, giving the Security Council powers never envisaged for it under the UN charter, said Lahiri. India's appeal to include terrorism and drug trafficking was also ignored, as "some states find it inconvenient to do so". Lahiri also questioned the court's validity, since the governments which represent two-thirds of humanity are not a party to it.

Yet, Savita Varde-Naqvi, of the International Committee for the Red Cross, which has helped prepare the treaty's framework, contends that nations which feel that the court may be misused by vested interests should get actively involved in it, instead of letting it get hijacked. For instance, the US voted against the court after the rejection of an amendment seeking exemption for its armed forces and agents working abroad from coming under the court's purview. The US warned that the court would have a tough time without US money and muscle.

Some observers have sought to link India's abstention to its fears over Kashmir. The court could prove to be a threat to several countries, including India, said John Bolton, former US assistant secretary of state for international organisations. Under the statute, "India could face claims that Kashmir is an occupied territory, China could face claims that Tibet is occupied and Kurds could claim they have been occupied by Iraq," he stated. MEA sources, however, brush off the warning as a "possible excuse" for US not signing. India is in a very strong legal position on Kashmir, and there's no way it could be taken to any court over the issue, they assert.

Varde-Naqvi points out that India's possible fear that the army role in areas like Kashmir and the Northeast may fall under the court's purview was unfounded, since the treaty only applies to the "most serious" crimes. "Why should the Indian armed forces, among the world's most professional, worry on this count?" she asks.

바카라 웹사이트But India has strong objections to the court's jurisdiction over internal armed conflict. It argued that such jurisdiction should only be used "in situations where a state structure had collapsed and its administrative and legal machinery has ceased to function." M.K. Balachandran, executive director, Indian Centre for Humanitarian Laws and Research, endorses this: "India has legislation to deal with these crimes. Why should we have to refer to an international court?". Varde-Naqvi, however, wonders why "internal conflict" worries everyone. "What have we got to hide? Are we saying that while we object to atrocities committed by nations against each other, we reserve the right to commit them against our own people?"