Paying for justice
Daniel Korski 7:39pm
To British ministers, the role that the International Criminal Court played over Libya
was key – it made clear that Colonel Gaddafi's actions were unacceptable and would be subject to international law. Tory MP Dominic Raab even wrote a piece in The Times about the need for
Libyans to rely on the ICC in The Hague, rather than seek retribution and revenge against Gaddafi and his loyalists.
And it wasn't only the British government. German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated that the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi should be tried by the ICC: 'Gaddafi should have a trial according to the law, something he never did with his opponents,' Merkel said when asked by the weekly Bild am Sonntag whether she was in favour of such a trial. Her UN representative followed up, by telling the Security Council of 'Germany’s sincere appreciation for all the efforts undertaken by the ICC, and personally by you, Mr. Ocampo, to ensure implementation of Resolution 1970(2011), notably through the issuance by your court of arrest warrants against Muammar al-Gaddafi, Saif al-Islam al-Gaddafi, and Abdullah al-Senussi.'
Now, however, moves are afoot to constrain the Court's work. Germany in particular is pushing to freeze the ICC's budget, which Court officials have made clear will seriously compromise its ongoing work. This is particularly challenging, given that the ICC was given responsibility for Libya by the UN Security Council, which has refused to pay anything for that investigation. This task comes on top of investigations in the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, Uganda, and Kenya.
Apparently, at a meeting on Monday in The Hague, a German diplomat stated the need for zero growth in the Court's budget, arguing that the Court must re-consider its priorities and focus only on its core functions. The ICC is financed by its 116 member states, using the scale adopted by the UN for its regular budget, so that the main contributors are Japan, Germany and the UK. They are right to ask for efficiencies. In fact, they must. But cutting the ICC's limited budget – €100 million a year, a third of its sister court the ICTY – seems unwise at the present time.
Previous
Verity
November 23rd, 2011 7:43pm Report this commentYa da-da, ya da-da.
Hexhamgeezer
November 23rd, 2011 7:58pm Report this commentThere are many reasons IC Court proceedings would be wrong. Economy is one rarely mentioned. A couple of days due process in Benghazi followed by a few days on view from a crane in a Misurata square will be justice enough and at a saving to the hard pressed European taxpayer and Libyan penal system.
Peter From Maidstone
November 23rd, 2011 8:37pm Report this comment100 million seems an awfully large budget for what should not be a lot of work?
Augustus
November 23rd, 2011 8:46pm Report this commentThere's far too much of this 'paying for justice' going on. What does it cost in investigations, indictments, manpower, planes and helicopters etc. to bring people to The Hague, not to mention all the witnesses that are required? And as for Libya, everyone knows that they are going to
proceed with their own 'justice'.
paulg
November 23rd, 2011 8:52pm Report this commentCan you tell us daniel exactly what the germans contributed to overthrowing gaddaffi.
I think its quite reasonable asking the Germans and the Japanese to pay for the ICC seeing that there nationals made most use of it.
Graphite
November 23rd, 2011 8:57pm Report this commentWhat part of this have I got wrong?
To Europeans, Gaddafi was just another ruler of an oil-rich state. A bit of a whacko, undoubtedly, but leader of a regime with whom they were perfectly happy to work.
Gaddafi's crimes were committed in Libya, against the Libyan people.
He was arrected by Libyan citizens.
Surely, the most logical place to try him was in Libya, by Libyans.
Which happened. He was found guilty and punishment was carried out.
Dave B
November 23rd, 2011 9:14pm Report this commentI think they should close the whole thing down. The notion of this court putting itself above elected politicos who answer to their electors is absurd.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100118043/at-last-someone-makes-the-case-against-international-jurisdiction/
porkbelly
November 23rd, 2011 10:44pm Report this commentWhy not let Saif get the justice he so richly deserves at the hands of his countrymen and save the 100 million? The spectacle of Ghaddafi Senior being humiliated and tormented was far more powerful a deterrent to future tyrants than any endless droning proceeding in the Hague could ever hope to be. But trust Korski to speak up on behalf of the international feeloading class.
Herbert Thornton
November 24th, 2011 1:07am Report this commentIn the Middle Ages, the members of what was then the Establishment, including lawyers of course, were familiar with the maxim - "Justitia est magnum emolumentum".
The very same idea clearly motivates those involved in the InternationaL Criminal Court racket.
daniel maris
November 24th, 2011 1:15am Report this commentI don't often agree with you Verity, but in this case I think I do. Ya da-da, ya da-da.
I mean you have to view the whole exercise with some scepticism when North Korea can head up a UN Human Rights committee.
I think the important thing is to create functioning democracies. Forget the International Courts. Is Libya going to be something resembling a democracy or a Sharia state?
daniel maris
November 24th, 2011 1:17am Report this commentI tend to the old-fashioned view that when the people overthrow a tyrant they can do with him what they will. The right of rebellion against tyranny is a natural right, not bestowed by international treaties.
TomTom
November 24th, 2011 4:29am Report this commentThe ICC has strange rules of procedure and is not a court Kenneth Clarke would accept in England. Then again we haven;t delivered up either Tony Blair or David Cameron to explain wars in contravention of UN Resolutions
EC
November 24th, 2011 7:28am Report this commentdaniel maris @ 1:15am and 1:17am
I agree!
TomTom
November 24th, 2011 9:04am Report this commentNATO is supposedly being investigated by the ICC for War Crimes in Libya, death of civilians particularly. Just how will NATO be delivered up for trial ?
Andy Carpark
November 24th, 2011 9:26am Report this commentFunny how Korski never sees fit to mention that Libya voted against the Rome Statute which founded the ICC (as did the USA), nor to explain why UN members were given a vote on the Statute was if the UN Security Council can impose jurisdiction on non-signatory nations.
He cannot claim he does not know these BASICS because he has been told them countless times. Recklessly allowing readers to infer that the ICC has universal jurisdiction is deliberate mendacity. Korski is not only a callow young man with a negligible grasp of his own subject, he is a disgrace to the blogosphere and should ejected from it at the point of a pitchfork, now.
Axstane
November 24th, 2011 10:09am Report this commentWhat exactly Germany has to do with Libya is beyond my ken. They stay out of almost every NATO affray except for sending some observers.
They should keep quiet and get on with forming the Fourth Reich.
James
November 24th, 2011 2:00pm Report this comment"Gaddafi's crimes were committed in Libya, against the Libyan people."
You obviously missed the bit where he was involved in international terrorism.
TomTom
November 24th, 2011 5:29pm Report this comment"They stay out of almost every NATO affray except for sending some observers"
Hell, they have a lot of dead soldiers in Afghanistan which disproves your bluster. Their KSK soldiers are very active with SAS and Delta Forces; and
their agents were very active in Iraq and Libya. They also have better Intelligence on Iran. The fact you haven't a clue should not be made quite so obvious
Graphite
November 25th, 2011 12:55am Report this commentJames
November 24th, 2011 2:00pm
" 'Gaddafi's crimes were committed in Libya, against the Libyan people.' "
"You obviously missed the bit where he was involved in international terrorism."
******************
No. Didn't miss that at all.
His fellow leaders of nations had been pissed off about his terrorism connections, especially Lockerbie, but had long since got over it. Tony Blair, for one, seemed pretty pally with the Guide of the Revolution.
He was never going to be brought to justice for anything he did in the international arena.
The reason he's now wandering around some other place muttering "where's my 72 virgins?" is because his fellow Libyans had had enough.
They dealt him the sort of justice he understood perfectly . . . and in the process cut out the useless mumblings of a bunch of overpaid, over-opinionated, self-important wankers in Europe.
Shut down the stupid ICC and spend the 100 million on something useful . . . right off the top of my head, whisky and whores would be better value for money.
Maddy1
November 25th, 2011 2:53am Report this commentFat lawyers fat fees. Where are the lawyers investigating prosecution of Romanian Leaders, in what is now part of the EU.for their, arguably unlawful ignoring of the killings? Surely the killing of the wife was murder? Then we have Spain so quick and easy with other peoples war crimes but not very comfortable with its own. Is there any journalist willing to tell us the truth about the finances of this industry? Sri Lanka made the mistake of ending its running dog war, against the most base of terrorists, with Chinese help. Everybody at the BBC knows you cannot end wars this way, and militarily, you must at some point accommodate the terror merchants! The usual suspects will pursue Sri Lanka now till hell freezes over now!
Back to top