Syria immune from being held accountable by ICC for atrocities

The International Criminal Court should act to bring Syrian officials to justice without Security Council authorisation.

More than 30,000 people have been killed in Syria since the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad in March 2011. Violations by government officials include indiscriminate shelling of civilian areas, targeted killings of activists and opposition supporters, arbitrary detentions, torture and rape, as well as attacks on hospitals and clinics and the use of health facilities for military operations, according to the UN.

A recent report by Human Rights Watch condemned the state-sanctioned atrocities in Syria and called on the United Nations Security Council to refer the matter to the International Criminal Court (ICC). Human Rights Watch as well as many other organisations expect the ICC to adopt targeted sanctions against Syrian officials involved in the crimes. The ICC has so far failed to bring the Syrian officials to justice.

One of the main reasons the ICC has not brought the officials to justice is because the the ICC prosecutor can only evoke the court’s jurisdiction if a referral is made from the Security Council - or from Syria itself. Senior officials from a number of countries and public and private sector organisations worldwide have lobbied the Security Council to refer Syria to the ICC. There is extraordinary agreement across the globe condemning the Syrian regime’s crimes, including a 137-12 General Assembly Vote, an overwhelming vote at the UN Human Rights Council.

Despite the increasing international pressure, it is highly unlikely the Security Council will authorise a referral when Russia and China continue to support Syria. Although the Russian and Chinese vetoes at the Security Council are not unconquerable. In the past China, on two occasions, changed its mind and later supported ICC referrals after originally rejecting such referrals. One occasion was in 2005 in relation to Darfur and the latest was the referral of Libya in 2011. History suggests that China could reverse its objection again – and Russia might follow suit.

If the Security Council refuse to refer Syria to the ICC, Syria itself could make a referral to the ICC. This would involve victims working with organisations such as Human Rights Watch to compile an evidentially solid and factual report on behalf of Syrian nationals, which could be presented as a referral to the ICC. Even with a referral to the ICC by Syria, the ICC’s jurisdiction cannot be evoked without the Security Council’s agreement. Pressure from Syria itself could sway the Security Council to concede and agree to evoke the ICC’s jurisdiction.

It is all too easy to get side tracked focusing on the political preferences of the Security Council while forgetting the vital role that the ICC plays in bringing Syrian officials to justice. At present the ICC has failed to hold such officials accountable for their actions. Instead it could appear to the outside world that the ICC is responsible for allowing such officials to carry out atrocities against innocent civilians with arrogant impunity.

The ICC’s failure to take action has wider ramifications on its function as a court established to deal with such atrocities. The ICC could be perceived as following the political agenda of the United States and the Security Council rather than upholding the rule of law. This will inevitably throw the court’s judicial autonomy and integrity into question. Failing to do justice could have long-term detrimental consequences for the ICC and international justice as a whole.

Ensuring countries all around the world are not immune from the consequences of committing such atrocities should be at the forefront of international policy. Particularly in this case, where there is an international consensus that the Syrian regime is responsible for war crimes. As mentioned above, the UN and Human Rights Watch among many other institutions have condemned Syrian’s official’s actions – and the ICC was created to deal with such situations. Rather than call into question the role of the ICC and international justice as a whole, the ICC should take action without Security Council authorisation. Bringing Syrian officials to justice will free the country from an oppressive regime and accelerate progress toward a political transition.

Syrian rebel fighters celebrate on top of a tank captured from the Syrian government forces. Photograph: Getty Images

Charlotte is a barrister in human rights law.

Show Hide image

Will Euroscepticism prove an unbeatable advantage in the Conservative leadership race?

Conservative members who are eager for Brexit are still searching for a heavyweight champion - and they could yet inherit the earth.

Put your money on Liam Fox? The former Defence Secretary has been given a boost by the news that ConservativeHome’s rolling survey of party members preferences for the next Conservative leader. Jeremy Wilson at BusinessInsider and James Millar at the Sunday Post have both tipped Fox for the top job.

Are they right? The expectation among Conservative MPs is that there will be several candidates from the Tory right: Dominic Raab, Priti Patel and potentially Owen Paterson could all be candidates, while Boris Johnson, in the words of one: “rides both horses – is he the candidate of the left, of the right, or both?”

MPs will whittle down the field of candidates to a top two, who will then be voted on by the membership.  (As Graham Brady, chair of the 1922 Committee, notes in his interview with my colleague George Eaton, Conservative MPs could choose to offer a wider field if they so desired, but would be unlikely to surrender more power to party activists.)

The extreme likelihood is that that contest will be between two candidates: George Osborne and not-George Osborne.  “We know that the Chancellor has a bye to the final,” one minister observes, “But once you’re in the final – well, then it’s anyone’s game.”

Could “not-George Osborne” be Liam Fox? Well, the difficulty, as one MP observes, is we don’t really know what the Conservative leadership election is about:

“We don’t even know what the questions are to which the candidates will attempt to present themselves as the answer. Usually, that question would be: who can win us the election? But now that Labour have Corbyn, that question is taken care of.”

So what’s the question that MPs will be asking? We simply don’t know – and it may be that they come to a very different conclusion to their members, just as in 2001, when Ken Clarke won among MPs – before being defeated in a landslide by Conservative activists.

Much depends not only on the outcome of the European referendum, but also on its conduct. If the contest is particularly bruising, it may be that MPs are looking for a candidate who will “heal and settle”, in the words of one. That would disadvantage Fox, who will likely be a combative presence in the European referendum, and could benefit Boris Johnson, who, as one MP put it, “rides both horses” and will be less intimately linked with the referendum and its outcome than Osborne.

But equally, it could be that Euroscepticism proves to be a less powerful card than we currently expect. Ignoring the not inconsiderable organisational hurdles that have to be cleared to beat Theresa May, Boris Johnson, and potentially any or all of the “next generation” of Sajid Javid, Nicky Morgan or Stephen Crabb, we simply don’t know what the reaction of Conservative members to the In-Out referendum will be.

Firstly, there’s a non-trivial possibility that Leave could still win, despite its difficulties at centre-forward. The incentive to “reward” an Outer will be smaller. But if Britain votes to Remain – and if that vote is seen by Conservative members as the result of “dirty tricks” by the Conservative leadership – it could be that many members, far from sticking around for another three to four years to vote in the election, simply decide to leave. The last time that Cameron went against the dearest instincts of many of his party grassroots, the result was victory for the Prime Minister – and an activist base that, as the result of defections to Ukip and cancelled membership fees, is more socially liberal and more sympathetic to Cameron than it was before. Don’t forget that, for all the worry about “entryism” in the Labour leadership, it was “exitism” – of Labour members who supported David Miliband and liked the New Labour years  - that shifted that party towards Jeremy Corbyn.

It could be that if – as Brady predicts in this week’s New Statesman – the final two is an Inner and an Outer, the Eurosceptic candidate finds that the members who might have backed them are simply no longer around.

It comes back to the biggest known unknown in the race to succeed Cameron: Conservative members. For the first time in British political history, a Prime Minister will be chosen, not by MPs with an electoral mandate of their own or by voters at a general election but by an entirelyself-selecting group: party members. And we simply don't know enough about what they feel - yet. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog. He usually writes about politics.