ICC tribunals necessary

Debates on the effectiveness of investigations by the International Criminal Court (ICC) on military and political crimes in Myanmar continue. Honest debate on pros and cons is needed. Why is John Bolton [US National Security Adviser] so vitriolic and threatening sanctions against judges and prosecutors of this very young court that is still proving itself?

An early predecessor of the ICC was the Russell Tribunal presided over by Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir in 1967. The private tribunal provided evidence of war crimes committed by the US in Vietnam and helped to end the war to the great relief of the Vietnamese population and American youth who protested conscription that made them fight against their will.

Nevertheless, the dirty war still continued until 1975 as hardliners could not give up their case. Constituting an international framework of justice and undertaking peacebuilding not only depend on nation states but as much on civil society, though it is often suppressed.

Private opinion tribunals like on the US war in Vietnam can be of great influence. That the US committed war crimes, and that Monsanto was complicit, has been much later confirmed in the “Monsanto Tribunal”, The Hague, 2017. The tribunal also accepted evidence on contemporary violations of human rights by Monsanto.

The advisory opinions of the civil society tribunal did open venues for new cases in formal courts and the prevention of future damage to health, livelihoods and the environment.

Patient and pragmatic ICC investigations regarding Myanmar, Afghanistan (where Bolton was responsible) and the Philippines — and a future mandate to investigate corporations — will certainly gradually help to contain crimes against humanity and the earth.