16 - 22 May 2002
Issue No.586
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 16 - 22 May 2002 Issue No.586 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
Talking global justice
A recent conference in Cairo aimed to investigate the role of the new International Criminal Court, Amira Howeidy was there
Born rather quietly at a special treaty event organised by the United Nations Secretariat a month ago, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has finally become a reality. But this historic development in international justice has not received the attention it deserves.
The court's launch was overshadowed by Israel's invasion of the West Bank and the atrocities committed against Palestinian civilians, against which hundreds of thousands across the world protested. So the ICC's creation, timely as it is, caused little impact on a distracted international community.
Nevertheless, the ICC's launch did not go totally unnoticed, at least not in Egypt. The court was brought back into the limelight by a four-day "international" conference in Cairo, creatively called "The ICC: Some debates and suggestions", which brought together experts from the region and across the world.
The conference, held on 9-11 May, was jointly organised by the International Human Rights Institute, De Paul University in Chicago and the Cairo-based Arab Centre for the Independence of the Judiciary and Legal Profession (ACIJLP).
More than 20 experts from the Arab world and international organisations engaged each other in intense discussions on topics as diverse as the financing of the ICC, its independence, the role and powers of the Assembly of States Parties, combating impunity, the US's renunciation of its signature of the ICC treaty, the European role in the ICC, the position of the Arab countries which have not ratified the Rome Statute and the role of NGOs in the ICC.
The speakers represented several international organisations including the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), Amnesty International, No Peace Without Justice and the NGO Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CICC) in addition to a number of experts who played a significant role in the creation of the permanent court. Among these were De Paul's Cherif Bassiuni and Fouad Riad, a former judge in the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).
Despite the diversity of the speakers, who represented various organisations and more than ten countries, there was consensus that civil society in general should try harder to obtain worldwide ratification of the Rome Statute -- despite, or rather in response to, the US's withdrawal of its signature.
Since the US believes in the one-superpower system, "we should counter it by creating other polar strengths," said Emma Bonino, a member of the European Parliament. "We will issue a strong and official declaration of our full support of the ICC. We will also demand an explanation from the US on its position," she stressed in her talk on the European role.
"The fact that both the US and Israel have renounced their signatures," suggested Abdel-Hussein Shaaban, head of the Arab Organisation for Human Rights (AOHR) London branch, "is an opportunity for the Arab countries which they shouldn't miss. It should encourage them to ratify the Rome Statute."
But although the US position was scrutinised, analysed and debated at length, the stance of the Arab countries -- supposedly a point of concern for the Arab speakers -- remained rather vague.
Arab delegates spoke of the ICC using such words as "it has come at a suitable time for the Arabs", and "for us it carries special meaning."
At the conference opening, a speech by Arab League Secretary- General Amr Moussa, delivered by Mohamed Radwan Ben- Khera, stressed the "support" of the ICC by Arab countries, as a "permanent international legal system that is independent, impartial and has jurisdiction over all individuals without selectivity or discrimination." Moussa's speech went on to list the Arab League's activities and contribution to the efforts of the international community to create the ICC.
"The Arab countries actively contributed to the Rome conference, the ICC's preparatory committee in the UN, and a majority of Arab countries have signed the Rome Statute while one country, Jordan, has ratified it."
The speech then told us that the Arab League held a "large Arab legal seminar" last February, with an impressive turnout of distinguished speakers, international organisations and heavy-weight legal institutions.
"In its resolutions, the seminar highlighted the importance of the Arab countries' presence in the first Assembly of States Parties," Ben Khera said, "especially in the assembly's first meeting, which will elect the judges, the prosecutor and the registrar."
But ironically enough, none of the Arab countries, with the exception of Jordan, have ratified the Rome Statute which created the ICC. In other words, only Jordan has agreed that the ICC is a legally binding institution, while for other Arab countries (and also for Israel and the US) its rulings have no legal force and therefore those governments are not subject to the ICC's international criminal law.
So apart from Jordan, no Arab delegation will even attend the first Assembly of States Parties next July. Despite the Arab League secretary-general's impressive display of Arab support and faith in the ICC, neither he, nor the speakers at the seminar, offered substantial arguments to support the position of most Arab countries.
One paper presented by AOHR's Shaaban offered an "Arab legal reading" of the ICC, but did not delve beyond the question on everybody's lips: why aren't the Arab countries ratifying?
"Isn't it rather strange and perhaps ironic?" asked Shaaban, "that the Arab countries are not taking advantage of the absence of Israel and the US to work on its own interests in the Assembly of States Parties [if they ratified] and perhaps file charges against Sharon and Israeli leaders for the crimes they're committing against the Arab and Palestinian people?"
To date, eight Arab states have refused even to sign, let alone ratify, the treaty: namely Iraq, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Libya, Lebanon, Mauritania, Bahrain and Somalia. Palestine, which is not a recognised state, cannot sign.
In the coffee breaks, Arab and Egyptian participants engaged in long scenario discussions on the Arab position. Conclusion: these are insecure regimes which have and continue to commit gross human rights violations against their people. In other words, are Arab governments prepared to ratify the Rome Statute to protect "Arab rights" in Palestine and Iraq? Other than expressing wonder at the "paradoxical" stand of Arab states, the coffee-break discussions couldn't offer answers.
The first and foremost item in the conference's recommendation statement was addressed to all Arab states -- asking them to become parties and ratify the Rome Statute. It also called upon Arab nations to proceed to adopt national legislation to allow Arab nations to adjudicate and enforce international humanitarian law at the national level, and where appropriate, to "cooperate with the ICC even before the completion of ratification". It described the United State's position as "passive" and a "mismatched role to International Justice."
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
Recommend this page