Suchergebnisse

A. Introduction Given recent developments in relation to the prosecution of international crimes, it might be thought that one of the last bastions of sovereignty has been breached, and international criminal law has not only entrenched itself in international law. Indeed further to this, it has assumed a supranational position that stands entirely above States, promising justice for all and as a trump card over depredations committed in the name of State sovereignty. After all, Charles Taylor from Liberia is standing trial before the Special Court for Sierra Leone, Slobodan Milošević only escaped judgment by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) by dying before the end of his trial, Saddam Hussein was prosecuted and sentenced to death before the Iraqi High Tribunal, and Omar al-Bashir has recently been the subject of a request for an arrest warrant from the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. Surely international criminal law reaches its iconographic apogee with the prosecution of such leaders, brought down to size by the majesty of the law (if not the grandeur of the often aseptic courtrooms)? Of course, in fact, the picture is far more complicated. Although it is too early to come to any judgment on the Taylor case, his appearance before the Special Court was as much a function of States tiring of him continuing to meddle in Liberian politics than a commitment to seeing him stand trial. Milošević was for many years apparently kept beyond the reach of the ICTY for reasons of ensuring peace in former Yugoslavia, then domestic political reasons, and his trial was itself one from which we might admit, lessons can be learned. The trial and punishment of Saddam Hussein is largely seen as having been mishandled, and inconsistent with the relevanthuman rights norms,5 and possible proceedings against al-Bashir have led to considerable controversy, with the African Union requesting deferral of the International Criminal Court's (ICC) processes relating to him, and the Security Council finding itself somewhat torn on the matter. As such we must be careful not to present what Georg Schwarzenberger described as the chocolate box version of international law and society. Some of the difficulties are referable to the nature of the international legal order, some of which are referable, on the other hand, to insalubrious forms of politics. It remains the case that the international legal order is torn between two imperatives, what Hedley Bull would have described as the pluralist and the solidarist views, and the difference between an international society and an international community. Nonetheless, some are simply problems of political will, and others are overstated, and the simple fact that it is possible to speak of the problems attending bringing leaders to justice rather than dismissing its possibility is in itself a development from the position soon enough ago that most international criminal lawyers can still remember it. This piece will seek to explain some of those problems involved in prosecuting leaders (including those of States) and those who, if we agree that we will see it as the general thrust of international criminal law, bear the greatest responsibility for international crimes, those at the apex of the command structure, in particular, heads of government. In doing so, though, it will do so with an eye to remembering that while international criminal law cannot live up to all its promises, it still keeps at least as many as most leaders do, and they are not the only international criminals deserving of punishment. ; peerReviewed