Rising nationalism leaves international criminal court at risk Top lawyer warns withdrawal of countries and limiting of funding threaten future of tribunal … Six months after the international criminal court’s new Dutch palace of justice was formally opened on windswept sand dunes beside the North Sea, a tide of nationalist sentiment is threatening to undermine the project. Three African states have begun withdrawing from its jurisdiction, raising fears that a succession of others will follow suit. Russia has removed its signature from the founding statute, the Philippines and Kenya are openly contemplating departure and key member nations – including the UK – have limited its funding.
So the ICC Criminal Court may be on the way out and that surely a positive development. Here at The Daily Bell, we are not fans of growing worldwide justice. We would rather see justice move in the other direction and become more privatexed again.
The ICC is funded in part by George Soros, and there is a reason for that. Soros gets involved when events are headed in an international direction. The creation and elaboration of global law is near and dear to the hearts of globalists everywhere.
The tribunal embodies international efforts to prosecute those responsible for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, but in 2017 it will face serious challenges to its credibility, insiders say.
Brexit, the election of Donald Trump and derogations from the European convention on human rights all represent a common theme of emphasizing national interests over international – usually stigmatised as “foreign” – laws.
The most immediate threat is the move by Burundi, South Africa and the Gambia, which in the last quarter of 2016 have all served notice of intention to withdraw, citing complaints that ICC prosecutions focus excessively on the African continent.
The ITC has 10 ongoing investigations since 2004 and these are almost all in Africa. This has led quite rightly to the idea that the ITC is mostly a way of focusing on Africa by Western white countries. A spokesman denied that the ICC was overly focused on Africa.
“Geographic considerations as such have no part in the exercise of this legal mandate. Most of the ICC investigations in Africa were opened at the request of the African governments themselves. Two more were opened following referrals to the ICC prosecutor by the United Nations security council.”
But all in all, the ITC is pursuing fewer cases rather than more and offering less “justice” as well. Again from our point of view this is a good thing. What starts out aimed at bad guys almost invariable ends up afflicting the West instead of its stated targets whatever they are.
Additionally, while this sort of justice is supposedly supposed to be on bleeding edge of fairness, it is often far less equitable than it seems. The targets are preemptory, and often the remedies are delayed or denied. It doesn’t help that Soros is involved.
Conclusion: Justice of this sort is best delivered by those involved. The idea that some supranational body can swoop in and adequately administer a curative is simply untrue. What’s involved could eventually have more if an impact on the west than the east, and not a good one.