International Criminal Law: Crimes of Genocide - Essay Example

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW Essay Student’s Name Instructor’s Name Course Title Date Under the ICC Statute the Court has jurisdiction over five crimes. These crimes include the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression. The Statute goes further to describe the crime of genocide as an act that is committed with the aim of destroying either in whole or in part groups which are protected such as a nation, ethnical group, racial group or any religious group (Oho, 2008). On the part of crimes against humanity, the statute describes it as acts committed as part of systemic or widespread attacks and directed towards a civilian population and the perpetrators are fully aware of the attack. War crimes in the statute include activities such as the willful killing, torture of human beings or even the destruction of property. According to Gerhard (2009), despite the relative differences in their definitions, these crimes share a common element for them to be admissible at the ICC. There is the requirement that these crimes must have occurred in pursuant to either state or an organizational policy, and in a large scale form for them to induce the activation of the jurisdiction of the ICC. This is the unifying factor in the approach of these offenses by the court. Crimes of Genocide When considering the description of the crime of genocide in the ICC Statute, it is clear that the crime has both an objective and a subjective aspect (Schabas, 2009). It is these elements that give room for the need to reduce that it is not possible for the crime of genocide to be commissioned without the genocidal policy or plan that is perpetrated by the concerned state or organization. The assumption is that an individual who perpetrates crimes against a protected group either as a whole or in part, is not capable to threaten the group’s existence as compared to an individual who is working within the frameworks of a broad and well organized context (Oho, 2008). Such an individual who is acting alone cannot therefore be subjected to scrutiny of the international community. In the case for the Rwandan genocide, the Appeals Chamber stated that the existence of a planned and organized system of activity was useful in proving that there was the intent of committing acts of genocide (Aptel, 2002). The position is however contested by opponents of this element of the crime. The argument is that the aim of making the act of genocide a criminal offense was to help prevent the commission of any genocidal actions; therefore it's necessary that the initial acts of the pattern that is emerging are included regardless whether they constitute an organized plan to commit the act of genocide (Gerhard, 2009). With the emerging technologies in the art of war, it is not out rightly irrefutable that an individual, who is acting in isolation, has the capacity to pose a threat to the target protected group. Aptel (2002) states that during the Rwandan genocide case, the Appeals Chamber ruling declared that selective and limited assistance given to a few individuals did not establish enough ground to indicate that there was the intent of committing the crime of genocide. This is a reasoning that is much seen as having been motivated by the idea that such individuals, even with funding, could not pose a threat to protected groups. Crimes against Humanity In order to invoke the jurisdiction of the ICC, it is required that crimes against humanity must have been carried out in furtherance of a State or organizational policy (Oho, 2008). This hence establishes the requirement that these crimes despite the geographical area covered or the number of victims they are directed towards, they must have occurred in an organized manner and follow a certain pattern. This raises the threshold of the cases above the customary law. Many people argue that this definition was devised with an aim of attracting States to ratify the Statute and ensure that they accepted the host of obligations. The statute requires that the crime must be “widespread” in its nature which is primarily reflected in the number of victims and not the geographical region covered. The crimes against humanity will only be addressed if it is evident that they were “systematic” involving a methodological pattern which is well organized and has a regular pattern. Gerhard (2009) argues that for the principle of “widespread” and “systematic” nature of the crime to be demonstrable, it is paramount to establish the existence of intentions to further an organizational or state policy at national, regional or local level. In relation to the Rwanda genocide case, the Appeals Chamber indicated that even though the existence of plans and furtherance of organization policy is evidently relevant in the establishment of the crimes against, it cannot operate as a separate element of humanity crimes (Human Rights Watch, 2010). The Trial Chamber in the same case in its ruling regarding the establishment of crimes against humanity ruled that the existence of such a plan was useful in establishing that an attack was systematic or widespread and directed towards a civilian population (Hwang, 1998). According to Schabas (2009), the ruling by the Trial Chamber in the Rwandan Genocide case indicates that the establishment of whether the crime was “widespread” or “systematic” is of essence since once this has been established, the number of victims does not matter given that even one single act of murder if perpetuated in this context, qualifies as a crime against humanity. War Crimes These crimes occur as in the context of or are associated with armed conflict. The ICC statute is clear that policy and organizational form have to be applied in order for the court’s jurisdiction to be evoked (Oho, 2008). This entails that the case has demonstrable elements of preconception and well organized pattern that is guided by a common policy. The policy does not have to be formally adopted as long as it is demonstrated that there was an element of preconception in its implementation. This will help in establishing the all important nature of the spread so as to help exclude isolated attacks that just motivated by other things that are not intended to eliminate a protected group. The requirement that for an act to qualify as a war crime it has to be demonstrated that it was meted out towards a civilian population, will only be shown if there were plans in place while the discriminatory nature of the crime is due to the policies in place (Gerhard, 2009). The inclusion of organizations that are not necessarily affiliated to the state helps to give an act of war crime a deeper dimension, ensuring that war crimes are not limited to states and other public officials but also private individuals with the de facto power or acting in organized criminal gangs. In the case of the Prosecutor vs. Jean-Paul Akayesu, the Trial Chamber ruled that war crimes are hostile acts towards individuals not involved in the furtherance of the hostility, including members of the armed forces that have laid down their arms and others who have been injured in the act of combat (Acquaviva, 2011). This was meant to establish a broader sense of the definition of the protected group in the context of war crimes. In the Liberian case pitting the Taylor and the Prosecutor, the trial chamber found Taylor as guilty of war crimes. It was proved that he offered support for the rebels, the Revolutionary United Front (RUF), enabling them perpetuate their organized crimes and further their policies. The activities of the RUF that spanned for a period of eleven years included the murder, enslavement, looting, raping cruel treatment, sexual slavery among other acts which led to war in the region.. There was demonstrable evidence that Taylor was involved in the funding of activities that constituted the furtherance of organizational policies. Conclusion International criminal law was introduced in order to help cover international rules breech that constitute a criminal offense as regards values that are revered by the international community. The ICC Statute aims at limiting the effects of International conflicts and ensures that the interests of all parties are well protected. It is paramount however to establish limits within which it is deemed that there is existence of crimes that threaten international interest (Gerhard, 2009). The requirement that it should be demonstrable that there was clear intent and that an act was carried out in relation to state and/or the organizational policy, is important in helping to establish the limits of the ICC to exclude acts that are motivated by individual interests. References Cecile, A 2002, The Intent to Commit Genocide in the Case Law of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Criminal Law Forum, 13, pp. 273 –291. Gerhard, W 2009. Principles of International Criminal Law, The Hague, TMC Asser Press. Guido, A 2011, Forced Displacement and International Crimes, Legal and Protection Policy Research Series, UNHCR, Geneva. Human Rights Watch, 2010. Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity: A Digest of the Case Law of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, New York, Human Rights Watch. Hwang, P 1998, Defining Crimes against Humanity in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Fordham International Law Journal, 22(2), pp. 456-504. Otto, T 2008. Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Observers‘ Notes, Article by Article, München, C.H. Beck. Schabas, W 2001, The Jelisic Case and the Mens Rea of the Crime of Genocide. Leiden Journal of International Law, 14, pp. 125 -134. Read More