Why the ICC Misses Atrocities — and Why Canada Still Pays

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has been making news lately - and not necessarily in a good way. Since Canada is both a financial supporter of the court and a party to the Rome Statute that created it back in 2002, it’s worth seeing exactly what we’re getting out of the deal.

Canada’s primary support for the ICC through Global Affairs Canada (GAC) comes to around $15 million a year. Beyond that, GAC contributes hundreds of thousands of dollars more each year to specific programs. Strengthening Accountability for Conflict Related Sexual Violence and Crimes Against Children, for example, is mandated to “support the investigation of crimes of sexual and gender-based violence and crimes affecting children”.

From everything I can see, the ICC is heavily politicized - although that’s not the same as saying that they’re corrupt. But the main complaint one might level against the court is that, for the most part, they’re useless. In their 23 years of existence, they’ve managed just 11 convictions out of a total of 33 cases. With the exception of a single case against the former president of the Philippines - and their more recent Israel obsession - the rest seem to be focused on Africa.

To a large degree, the impotence is not the fault of the ICC. After all, they have no jurisdiction over crimes committed in states (like Israel) that are not parties to the Rome Statute. In theory, they could act on a referral from the United Nations Security Council, but it’s highly unlikely anything meaningful would come from that environment.

So the ICC is limited to just the 125 countries that did sign on. But the real story is who isn’t there. That would be most of us. More than half the world’s population lives in such countries, which include the U.S., Russia, China, India, Indonesia, and Pakistan.

For whatever it’s worth, I’m sympathetic to the “no” side - although not necessarily for the same reasons. Why would any country with a reliably functioning legal system out-source their criminal justice oversight to a judiciary that doesn’t share the same legal traditions and isn’t locally accountable?

Some may argue that the court isn’t designed to prosecute crime in Canada so we’ve got nothing to worry about. Ok. So then why did we need to sign on at all? The actual targets can be dealt with without our direct participation (in much the same way the UK prosecuted the Lockerbie bombing).

So jurisdictional limitations would partially explain how the court (along with everyone else) has completely missed the biggest crimes of the century, including:

• Myanmar (Rohingya)

• China (Uyghurs)

• Syria and ISIS

• Iraq/Syria (Yazidis and others)

• Sudan (Darfur)

• Ethiopia (Tigray & beyond)

• Yemen

• Sri Lanka (civil war endphase)

• North Korea

• Venezuela

• Iran (state sponsored terrorism)

• Afghanistan (Taliban)

• Russia / Ukraine

• Nigeria (Boko Haram)

But three of those nations - Nigeria, Venezuela, and Afghanistan - actually are parties to the Statute. Between Boko Haram in Nigeria, the Taliban in Afghanistan, and some pretty nasty repression in Venezuela, there have been no shortage of unprosecuted atrocities on the ICC’s watch.

Perhaps it’s that selectivity of ICC activities that’s contributed to their trust issues. Why, while ignoring all those obvious atrocities occurring within their jurisdiction, should they twist themselves into pretzels to rationalize issuing their arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant? It takes industrial-strength cognitive dissonance to fault Israel for responding to a savage and unprovoked invasion on the scale of October 7. And, given ongoing explicit public calls from Hamas and its supporters in the West for the complete destruction of Israel and the Jewish people, the job is far from done.

Perhaps it was such politicization and credibility issues that explain why so many countries have refused to opt in. I suppose you get the constituency you deserve.