Strengths and Weaknesses of National and International Trials - Essay Example

Strengths and weaknesses of national and international trials Introduction In the history of the world, instruments of justice both at the national and international levels have held trials for people believed to have committed violent crimes or condoned it. Courts and tribunals are the most common of such justice systems today. International and national trials have been applauded for their successes in ending violence and bringing justice, and frowned upon by many because of perceived weaknesses in trying convicts of crimes in various parts of the world (Biehler, 2008). National trials are held in courts within the respective countries where crimes have been committed. They are organized by the national justice system in those countries. International trials are carried out in courts outside the affected countries. Examples include the International Criminal Court (ICC), the International criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), and the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY) (Glasius, 2005). The focus of this essay is to investigate the strengths and weaknesses of national and international trials in helping to end violence and bring justice. In this discussion, specific reference will be made to cases and activities at the International Criminal Court and the Egyptian national courts. Strengths of International Trials Trials for people at the international level have had their successes and failures which show their strong and weak areas respectively. Some trials have never kicked off while others have taken too long to be completed. Many are the times that international courts and tribunals have been blamed for acting slowly or not acting at all when they need to have achieved a lot. The success of international trials lies in the quick completion of the process that delivers justice to those affected by the committed crimes and those under trials (Born, 2009, 93). Many trials carried out by international justice systems have ended successfully with some of them finding guilty and jailing those prosecuted before these courts. International courts and tribunals have major challenges that they need to overcome before they register any success. They rely on support from the international community through funding, making arrests, gathering evidence and intelligence and pressurizing uncooperative governments. Many times this kind of support is always hard to come by and the courts have to fight hard in order to bring any convict to trial. In spite of all these challenges, international trials have made strides towards success and some of them are already bearing fruits. Several convicted criminals have been tried at the ICTR and ICTY (Balch, 2003, 112). The activities and cases of the ICC in trying to stop violence and deliver justice provide a good example for this discussion. The ICC prosecutor has initiated investigations in Darfur, Kenya, the Ituri district of the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Central African Republic and Northern Uganda. Some of these investigations have been completed and perpetrators of crimes have been charged for crimes against humanity and war crimes while others are still underway. The ICC has particularly been successful in sentencing those that have been charged for various crimes before the court with Thomas Lubanga and Charles Taylor who were found guilty and send to prison being good examples. Many other cases at the court are still at the trial stage and it is expected that some good news will come out of them (Balch, 2003, 114). The former ICC prosecutor, Mr. Moreno Ocampo has carried out a lot of investigations in countries such Kenya where the 2007 post election violence resulted in the death of more than 1000 people. Six people from Kenya have been charged with crimes against humanity although two have had their charges dropped. The progress of the Kenyan cases has improved the image of the ICC as a functional court (Birkeland, The American University 2008, 45). International trials are safe from home interference from the countries of those charged with crimes. The ICC for example is an independent court that cannot be influence by powerful politicians in the countries where those who have been charged with crimes come from. An international court such as ICC is free from corruption and government interference in its operations. The governments of the countries where crimes have been committed have no chances of manipulating the ICC on what it should do especially if they have chosen to cooperate with the court (Lee, Project on International Courts and Tribunals, United Nations Institute for Training and Research 1999, 78). Weaknesses of International trials In reference to the ICC, international trials have been deemed to be very weak by many analysts. The first successful trial that the ICC has held since its formation is the one of Thomas Lubanga followed by that of Charles Taylor who was charged with sponsoring war crimes and crimes against humanity in DRC and Sierra Leone respectively. Even though these are the only successful trials, they are strong indicators of the potential of the court to deliver justice. One major weakness that has been associated either international trials is selective prosecution. Most of the people the ICC is seeking to try come from Africa yet crimes that fall within the jurisdiction of the court have been committed in the places. This to many has been seen as weakness on the part of the court and an inability to offer uniform delivery of justice around the world (Birkeland, The American University 2008, 65). International courts and tribunals have also have been blamed for avoiding prosecution and trial against those in power. The ICC prosecutor for example, has only targeted rebels, leaders of the opposition and war lords in the countries where crimes have been committed. The case of Darfur in Sudan was brought to the ICC by the UN Security Council but the lack of cooperation from Khartoum necessitated the issuance of a warrant of arrest against President Omar al- Bashir (Holmes, 2009, 213). However, because the court lacks its own police it has not been able to arrest him. Charles Taylor was arrested and handed to the court after he had ceased from being president of Liberia. The same thing happened with Slobodan Milosevic before he died (Glasius, 2005, 56). The prosecutor should focus on perpetrators who are still in power in countries where she has been invited or wherever she chooses to do investigations. The leaders of governments should not call upon the ICC and try to use it to silence their opponents and avoid being scrutinized. Government leaders should be prosecuted in the court in order to give it credibility. It should pursue and bring to book those government leaders involved in the abuse of human rights. Such convictions have the power to give the court legitimacy that cannot be obtained through prosecution of rebels. Examples of well received prosecutions around the world are those of Slobodan Milosevic and Charles Taylor (Glasius, 2005, 70). The trial of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo was completed after which he was accused and found guilty in March 2012. However this came at the time when the tenure of the prosecutor Moreno Ocampo was coming to a close. Only two trials have so far been completed in the tenure of this prosecutor. This is seen as a failure on the side of the court and the prosecutor given that a lot of funds have been wasted on court processes. After the formation of the ICC, it was dormant for about nine years (Heller, Dubber, 2010, 321). The ICC can tackle impunity more by expanding its activities beyond Africa. The prosecutor has done some work on the Afghanistan and Colombia cases. If there is enough evidence found in these cases then the prosecutor needs to go ahead with investigations and possible prosecution of perpetrators of crimes in these countries. The ICC prosecutor has not shown clarity in the objectives of the court in those countries where the court operates. She needs to make it clear that she is not just focused on her own cases but is committed to building domestic capacities for prosecution and supporting the efforts of ending impunity and encouraging stability. The actions of the prosecutor have failed to gunner support for the court from the international community especially those European countries that supported the creation of the court. The prosecutor should win the confidence of these nations so that they can offer their support for the arrest and prosecution of government leaders. All the time Sudan has refused to cooperate with the ICC, the west has stood and watched (Holmes, 2009, 34). The ICC is at work but its pace has been too low. It needs to step up its game. For it to deter criminal activities in the days to come it must expand its scope and increase its efforts of pursuing those who abuse power. The founding states to the ICC should be won over in order for them to give political support to the court if its dream of ending impunity around the world is to be realized (Holmes, 2009, 23). Since there are no effective supranational institutions available to enforce international criminal law, international criminal courts rely on the political will of individual countries to do that. If individual states do not give their support or cooperate with international courts, they will remain powerless and unable to perform. For example, they cannot arrest, compel people to produce evidence, or enforce the judgments they have made. Because of these reasons it is hard to establish a strong system of justice because the courts cannot administer justice in a meaningful way without considering the complexity and volatility of the international politics in certain parts of the world (Lee, et al., 1999, 67). The ICC relies on the willingness of the countries that have ratified it to give out suspects and help in collecting information to make the trials successful. It is unfortunate this does not happen with the ICC. There are cases where the court has had the evidence, it has issued an indictment but there have been no trial because the persons who have been indicted are not given to the ICC to be tried. Because of this, the suspect remains out there as an international criminal. Powerful players on the international scene have the ability to rubbish what the international courts are demanding. The less powerful states of the world seem to be the ones that the international justice system targets for its activities. If powerful nations do not exert any pressure then the weakest of states can attempt to defy the international courts any time (Holmes, 2009, 32). Certain weaknesses existing in international criminal courts could be dealt with even in the current form of international relations. Because there is no or very little cooperation those in power who have been indicted and the military leaders holding a lot of power go own committing crimes that they are not called to answer to. Although the Rome statute was ratified there is a difference between perceived cooperation from states and the actualization of that cooperation. This laxity on the side of party states is an ongoing frustration to the court and the entire process. There needs to be something being done to force indicted criminals to go to the court (Biehler, 2008, 12). Another major weakness of the ICC comes from the refusal to cooperate by three UN Security council members. China is yet to sign the Rome statute and the United States and Russia have refused to ratify it. This is a stumbling block for ICC. The 2002 actions of the Bush Administration meant that the US unsigned the Rome Statute. Failure to participate by these countries makes it hard for the court’s laws to be enforced. The failure of the US to participate hampers the progress of the ICC (Glasius, 2005, 118). Strengths and weaknesses of national courts Just as the trials in international courts, the national court trials have their strengths and weaknesses. National trials have their strengths. They give those who have been charged confidence to face trial because they are being tried at home. Many people may that being tries in a foreign court may be unfair because those trying them do not understand the political dynamics in their country. Therefore, being tried in a national court which has local judges gives them a psychological advantage (Hamad, The University of Utah, 2008, 173) National court trials may have the advantage of getting support from the government of the countries they are located in. The national court in Egypt for example, has received the backing of the new government to try and jail the former President Hosni Mubarak and his associates. Libya has also had national trials in which the former associates of Muamar Gadaffi have been brought before trial. People who feel that having their countrymen judged outside the country is betrayal to the sovereignty of their country can give all their support to a national trial. This support can ensure great success for any trials done nationally (Brown, 1997, 96). Trials done at the national level also have the strength of using national law enforcement institutions to such as the police and Criminal investigation departments to gather evidence, arrest and prosecute those charged with crimes. The courts only have to issue an arrest warrant and wait for the cooperation of the police in arresting those needed to face trial. The director of public prosecutions or any officer responsible for public prosecution could also support the courts in carrying out their mandate. National courts also have the confidence of receiving support from governments in terms resources. They are funded by the government and their activities are not hampered in any way because of lack of funds. This should give them motivation and the power to do carry out fair trials. National trials have the advantage of delivering justice in a short time based on the efficiency of the judicial system in the country in question. Generally, many national trials do take a shorter time compared to the international trials that drag for years before any substantial progress is realized. Quick delivery of justice makes people have confidence in the courts as credible and this may endear them to the people (Heller, Dubber, 2010, 205). National trials also have the advantage of trying all cases of crime including the big and smaller ones. As opposed to the international trials where only major crimes are tried, the national courts try even the smallest of crimes. Those people involved in petty crimes can also find themselves in court and this makes the justice system very fair and acceptable to all people. National trials may however have their weaknesses as well. Depending on the country where the court is located, it may be affected by issues of corruption. Provision of justice may be hampered by corrupt judicial and law enforcement systems. When this happens many people charged with criminal activities go free and get the chance to commit more crimes. Corruption in national courts breeds impunity and lawlessness. Corruption may also result in discriminative delivery of justice. Those without the money to bribe and those who do not have the political influence and power are bound to face trial while those with power, wealth and political influence go free. National Governments may also interfere with the free functioning of the national trial processes. This could be the case where the government feels the court process is a threat to its activities or is touching on powerful individuals in government (Heller, Dubber, 2010, 215). The courts may be manipulated by government officials to compromise the process of delivery of justice to citizens of the country. Those in power for example the sitting presidents are cannot be successfully be indicted by their national courts or charged for any crime as long as they hold power. In Egypt for example, before the Arab spring began the president was unpopular and citizens were complaining of many injustices perpetrated by his regime. However, nothing could be done to him until his government was toppled from power through the protests and demonstrations that came with the Arab Spring. This opened the way for charges to be pressed against him on court and the trial process has so far been successful since a new government was already in place (Hamad, The University of Utah, 2008, 217). Conclusion In conclusion, the essay has presented a discussion on the strengths and weaknesses of national and international trials in bring justice and stopping violence. The ICC and the Egyptian National Courts were used as the examples in the discussion. International courts such as the ICC have shown various strengths and weaknesses. The ICC has many challenges but since its inception in 2003 it has had two successful trials and many investigations with several other cases pending before the court. The court has done investigations in Colombia, Sudan, Kenya, DRC, CAR, Afghanistan, Uganda, Yugoslavia and other places where crimes have been committed. However, the court also has weaknesses because it faces an uphill task of working to bring justice in the world but without the backing of the powerful nations of the world. It relies on the international community for financial support, arresting of criminals, and gathering intelligence and evidence on suspects. The court therefore takes too long to deliver justice and very few cases have successfully been tried. On the other hand, national courts such as the one in Egypt have their weaknesses and strengths. These courts have the advantage of getting government support and the support of the people in the country. They get the services of the police and other arms of government. They take a shorter time to complete trial processes and can try people charged with petty crimes together with those with bigger crimes. National courts have weaknesses such as government interference; corruption and the inability of the courts charge those in power with crimes. Both national and international courts have various strengths and weaknesses. The strengths should be improved upon and the weaknesses rectified to make them strengths. This will ensure efficiency in justice delivery for these courts. References Balch, T. (2003). International Courts Arbitration. Cengage. Biehler, G. (2008). Procedures in International Law. JHU Press. Birkeland, T.K., The American University (2008). Sanctioning of Individuals: The International Criminal Court. ProQuest. Born, G.B. (2009) International Commercial Arbitration. John Wiley & Sons. Brown, N. (1997). The Rule of Law in the Arab World. Courts in Egypt and the Gulf. MIT Press. Glasius, M. (2005). The International Criminal Court: A global Civil Society Achievement. Routledge. Hamad, M., The University of Utah (2008). When the Gravel Speaks: Judicial Politics in Modern Egypt. Oxford University Press. Heller, K., Dubber, M. (2010). The Handbook of Comparative Criminal Law. Stanford University Press.  Holmes, O. (2009). The International Criminal Court and problems of State Sovereignty. GRIN Verlag. Lee, S.R., Project on International Courts and Tribunals, United Nations Institute for Training and Research (1999). The International Criminal Court; The Making of the Rome Statute. MIT Press. Read More