Beyond the Bubble

Since the end of World War II, the global community has focused on deterring states and individuals from committing violent acts. With this aim it created both the International Court of Justice (ICJ, one of the six main branches of the United Nations) and the International Criminal Court (ICC). In essence, the ICJ is responsible for acting as an impartial judicial mediator in conflicts hat occurred between states. The ICC, in contrast, is responsible for prosecuting individuals suspected of genocide, crimes against humanity and/or war crimes.

By establishing the ICJ and ICC, the international community hoped that states and individuals would be more reticent to commit these serious international crimes, as they would be aware of the potential repercussions that could be enforced by the international judicial body.

With the implementation if the ICC it was also hoped that as governments became aware that an international body could prosecute their citizens, they would be more inclined to establish legitimate domestic bodies to keep their citizens within their own judicial systems. The ICC was not created with the intention of replacing domestic courts, but rather to act as safety-net mechanism, available in case domestic courts were unwilling or unable to prosecute their own citizens.

While noble in their aims, and seemingly necessary in their existence, the organs of international justice are incredibly frustrating. Many international justice scholars have argued that these institutions have largely failed in their goal of facilitating international justice. They argue that these bodies handle too few cases to be seen as a credible deterrent for would-be criminals and violent states. Scholars also note that because neither body has any armed agents, they must rely solely on states to cooperate with them in the apprehension of suspects, cooperation with investigations and enforcement of judgments. Finally, scholars and non-academics alike argue that international courts are incredibly expensive.

Further handicapping the ICC and ICJ are their respective constitutional mandates allowing them to only prosecute states that legally recognize their bodies’ jurisdiction. At present only 109 countries have ratified the ICC’s charter, leaving dozens of violent states out of that court’s jurisdiction.

All of this is not to say that international courts are useless; it is however, meant to imply that peaceful states cannot rely on these bodies as a rationalization for not intervening in conflicts. Though the global community has taken steps along the road to peace by creating organs devoted to international justice, such bodies are by nature backward-looking institutions; as such, they should not be used as a rationale for not addressing ongoing conflicts in the present.

While it would be a gross oversimplification to equate the rationale for non-intervention into conflict zones by peaceful actors simply with their recognition that the global community is now equipped with the institutions to prosecute these crimes, I do propose that this mindset factors into the equation. I believe that there is a decreased willingness to intervene in conflicts because of the increased presence of international actors on the world stage. With the proliferation of NGOs, transnational bodies and global governance bodies, states with militaries capable of actually deterring conflicts have turned a blind eye to states in need. Stable states send aid, enforce UN declarations of peace and allow their NGOs access to conflict-riddled countries — but is it enough?