UPDATES

Conviction of Charles Taylor – A warning for Assad and Bashir?

May 1, 2012 | Sharyn Mittelman

Conviction of Charles Taylor - A warning for Assad and Bashir?
news_item/taylor-2.jpg

The conviction of Charles Taylor, the former president of Liberia and once powerful warlord, was a landmark ruling by an international tribunal – the Special Court for Sierra Leone. It was the first guilty verdict for a head of state in the history of UN war crimes courts.

Taylor was found guilty on April 26 of aiding and abetting war crimes during Sierra Leone’s brutal civil war in the 1990s. The verdict is being hailed as a lesson for the accountability of heads of state everywhere. As Prosecutor Brenda Hollis said:

“This judgment affirms that with leadership comes not just power and authority, but also responsibility and accountability… No person, no matter how powerful, is above the law.”

Taylor’s verdict could ostensibly be a warning for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad whose regime has been accused of committing atrocities in a brutal crackdown that began on March 2011. The UN estimates that over 9,000 people have been killed in Syria since the crackdown began. As William Hague, Britain’s Foreign Minister, wrote on Twitter:

“Justice has been done. Remember his victims, & remind #Assad: there is no expiry date for crimes against the innocent”.

Britain and France stepped up pressure on the Assad regime in March demanding that Assad and his officials face an international war crimes trial. British Prime Minister David Cameron said:

“We should do more to make sure that those who are responsible for atrocities are held to account. We need to document their crimes… I have a clear message for those in authority in Syria: make a choice, turn your back on this criminal regime or face justice for the blood that is on your hands.”

Similarly, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said that “Dictators anywhere in the world should know that they will have to account for their crimes…Those who have committed crimes should be brought to trial.”

However, bringing Assad and his officials to trial would be challenging on a number of fronts. Syria does not recognise the International Criminal Court (ICC), which means that prosecutors cannot intervene unless the UN Security Council requests them to do so, and Russia and China would likely veto any such move.

In addition, there is a lack of political will to bring war criminals to justice. As an editorial in the Wall Street Journal noted:

“…butchers like Syria’s Bashar Assad and Sudan’s Omar al-Bashar, who have been indicted by the ICC, have little to worry about as long as the outside world lack the will to stop the atrocities that they are ordering today.”

The difficulty in bringing Assad to trial highlights the challenges in seeking international justice, and particularly the problems with the ICC, which was designed as a successor to the temporary UN courts, like the one that convicted Taylor. The ICC has been open for ten years and has made only one conviction – Congolese warlord Thomas Lubanda, who was jailed earlier this year for use of child soldiers.

Part of the problem may be that ICC is sidelined in the UN and in many conflicts which diminishes its role and importance. Christopher Stephen wrote in Foreign Policy Magazine:

“The ICC was originally designed by the UN to replace ad hoc courts that have brought justice to the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Sierra Leone. But objections from the United States, China, and Russia, among others, saw it divorced from the UN apparatus. It exists, instead, as a curious free-standing organization, governed by its 121 member states. Its long-term aim is to win integration into the UN, but for the moment it is stuck halfway down the road. It can police its own members, but most states who commit war crimes do not join the ICC. Instead, it encourages the UN’s Security Council to refer cases to it.

This has happened twice, with the Security Council ordering it to investigate Darfur in 2005, and last year, Libya. Both cases are stuck in the mire. In 2008, Ocampo indicted Sudan’s president Omar Al Bashir for genocide. Bashir, not surprisingly, chose not to turn himself in and, to date, the Security Council has put little pressure on Sudan to change the policy. [See Daniel Meyerowitz-Katz’s efforts on Bashir’s current escalating violence against South Sudan and apparent open calls for genocide here and here.]

A similar impasse, for different reasons, is underway with Libya. The new government arrested Saif Al Islam Qaddafi, son of the late dictator, in November last year. Charged with war crimes by the ICC, the rules say Tripoli must hand him over to The Hague, but Libya’s government insists it will try him at home. As with Sudan, the court itself is powerless to intervene. Only the UN can take action and, as with Sudan, there has thus far been a deafening silence.”

Given that most of the world’s war zones are in states that are not part of the ICC, and it’s unlikely that the Security Council will refer cases due to the veto power of the permanent five who will protect their allies, the ICC has given its attention to Africa. All of the ICC’s seven investigations are in Africa, which has drawn criticism from those who argue that Africa is being unfairly targeted while others are ignored. The African Union has declared that member states are not required to arrest ICC suspects and some nations are considering withdrawing from the court.

In addition, ICC investigations of current conflicts have also been criticised for contributing to perverse incentives that encourage leaders to stay and fight rather than flee and likely face trial. Some suggest this could be seen last year when the UN Security Council called on the ICC to investigate the Gaddafi regime attacks “against civilian population [which] may amount to crimes against humanity.” As Tzvi Fleischer wrote in the Australia/Israel Review:

“The ICC may investigate Gaddafi, but has no means to arrest and try him as long as he rules Libya. So his incentive was not to stop doing things which might lead to his prosecution – such as killing his political opponents – but to keep doing so as a means to avoid being deposed and thus subject to arrest.”

Fleischer notes that international law remains useful, but that in the case of laws of armed conflict perhaps this means, “re-writing them to recognise the perverse incentives they create for terrorist and insurgent groups, or dictators like Gaddafi.”

International justice remains imperfect and the future usefulness of the ICC remains unclear. Nevertheless, many see Taylor’s verdict as significant in sending a strong message to heads of state that they are not immune from prosecution. As David Crane, former prosecutor who indicted Taylor in 2003 and now Professor of International Law at Syracuse University, said:

“[Taylor’s verdict] permanently locks in and solidifies the idea that heads of state are now accountable for what they do to their own people…This is a bell that has been rung and clearly rings throughout the world. If you are a head of state and you are killing your own people, you could be next.”

Perhaps so, and there is not doubt that the conviction of Taylor is a step forward for justice. However, until the ICC can prove it can actually act against a sitting head of state, rather than against only those who have been deposed or otherwise de-fanged anyway, the Court’s promise and core mission will remain partly unfulfilled.

Sharyn Mittelman

 

Tags:

RELATED ARTICLES


Then US Vice President Joe Biden (L) shakes hands with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as they deliver joint statements during their meeting in Jerusalem March 9, 2016 (photo credit: REUTERS/DEBBIE HILL)

Israel and Middle East consider a probable Biden administration

Nov 6, 2020 | Update
Clockwise, from top left: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at his office in Jerusalem, Sept. 13 2020 (Alex Kolomiensky/Yedioth Ahronoth via AP, Pool); Sudanese Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok at the Elysee palace in Paris, Sept. 30, 2019. (AP Photo/Thibault Camus); US President Donald Trump at the White House, Oct. 21, 2020 (AP Photo/Alex Brandon); Sudanese Gen. Abdel-Fattah Burhan, head of the military council, west of Khartoum, June 29, 2019 (AP Photo/Hussein Malla, File)

Sudan normalises relations with Israel

Oct 29, 2020 | Update
Former Saudi Ambassador to the US and intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan

The split between the Palestinians and Arab states

Oct 22, 2020 | Update
Palestinians shoot tear gas at the Israeli army in Ramallah, as  they clash during the first days of the Second Intifada. The intifada was the second Palestinian uprising, a period of intensified Palestinian-Israeli violence, which began in late September 2000. October 24, 2000. Photo by Nati Shohat/Flash90

The Changing Middle East

Oct 9, 2020 | Update
The map Israeli PM Netanyahu presented on Tuesday as part of his video address to the UN General Assembly

Netanyahu exposes Hezbollah missile sites in Beirut

Oct 2, 2020 | Update
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo speaks during a news conference to announce the Trump Administration's restoration of sanctions on Iran at the State Department in Washington on Sept. 21. (PATRICK SEMANSKY / POOL / AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES)

Sanctions “snapback” dispute regarding Iran

Sep 25, 2020 | Update

SIGN UP FOR AIJAC EMAILS

RECENT POSTS

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo meeting with Israeli PM Binyamin Netanyahu in Israel. Photo: US State Department/flickr

Australia should consider declaring BDS antisemitic

50551623937 21cf0b82f9 K

Interview: AIJAC’s Ahron Shapiro with SBS Radio’s Nitza Lowenstein on what a Biden Administration may mean for Israel, Iran and the Peace Process

Credit: massmatt/Flickr

Bipartisan support for Israel clear winner in 2020 US election 

Screen Shot 2020 11 13 At 8.45.54 Am

The US elections: Views from the Middle East – Ehud Yaari

2018 World Health Assembly

WHO set to continue anti-Israel politicisation at this year’s World Health Assembly

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo meeting with Israeli PM Binyamin Netanyahu in Israel. Photo: US State Department/flickr

Australia should consider declaring BDS antisemitic

50551623937 21cf0b82f9 K

Interview: AIJAC’s Ahron Shapiro with SBS Radio’s Nitza Lowenstein on what a Biden Administration may mean for Israel, Iran and the Peace Process

Credit: massmatt/Flickr

Bipartisan support for Israel clear winner in 2020 US election 

Screen Shot 2020 11 13 At 8.45.54 Am

The US elections: Views from the Middle East – Ehud Yaari

2018 World Health Assembly

WHO set to continue anti-Israel politicisation at this year’s World Health Assembly

SORT BY TOPICS