A Very Interesting Precedent

By Cernig

I haven't kept up on events in Sudan and who is doing what to whom, but nevertheless it seems to me that news today that the International Criminal Court's prosecutor has recommended that the court issue a warrant for Sudan's sitting president on charges for crimes committed in Darfur might establish a very interesting precedent.

Luis Moreno-Ocampo on Monday urged a three-judge panel to issue an arrest warrant for President Omar Hassan al-Bashir to prevent the deaths of about 2.5 million people forced from their homes in the war-torn region of Darfur and who are still under attack from government-backed Janjaweed militia.

The five charges against al-Bashir include masterminding attempts to wipe out African tribes in the war-torn region with a campaign of murder, rape and deportation.

In an exclusive interview with CNN's Nic Robertson in the Dutch city of The Hague, the prosecutor said he had a responsibility to bring charges against al-Bashir.

"The (U.N.) Security Council referred the case to me and requested me to investigate," Moreno-Ocampo said.

...The judges must now decide whether to issue the warrant, and it is widely expected that they will; the judges have approved all 11 of Moreno-Ocampo's previous submissions to the court.

If issued, the warrant would make al-Bashir the first sitting president to be indicted by the ICC for genocide.

In his request, Moreno-Ocampo says there are reasonable grounds to believe that al-Bashir bears criminal responsibility for five counts of genocide, two counts of crimes against humanity, and two counts of war crimes.

The alleged crimes stem from a brutal counter-insurgency campaign the Sudanese government conducted after rebels began an uprising in Sudan's western Darfur region in 2003. The United States and much of the world has already characterized the campaign as genocide.

The CNN report above goes on to say that the ICC prosecutor was investigating following instructions from the UN Security Council and that he doesn't expect any warrant to be enforced unless a UNSC resolution authorises unusual measures to do so.

This seems to set interesting precedent for two reasons. One, that the UNSC could indeed use an ICCC warrant as the cause for military intervention and, two, that it doesn't seem to matter in ordering the prosecutor to investigate or in his issuing a warrant that Sudan is not a signatory to the ICC treaty. Neither is the U.S., remember. While we'll never see a UNSC resolution calling on the U.S. to hand over someone charged by the ICC (the US having a UNSC veto), we might yet see an ICC warrant issued against a U.S. politician, maybe even a former senior official, for crimes against humanity and war crimes even though America isn't a party to the ICC itself. If the Court issues its warrant against the Sudanese president, then certainly that precedent would be set. Hopefully, any U.S. president in office should that occur would have the sense to extradite the subject of the warrant to let them have their day in court and defend themselves properly.

Comments

[John]

Cernig,

"Hopefully, any U.S. president in office should that occur would have the sense to extradite the subject of the warrant to let them have their day in court and defend themselves properly."

That's satire, right?

[Steve Hynd]

John, yep. While it would be the right and sensible thing to do, I won't hold my breath for it happening that way should the question come up.

Regards, C