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.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Voters are turning against Brexit but the Lib Dems aren't benefiting

Labour's pro-Brexit stance is not preventing it from winning the support of Remainers. Will that change?

More than a year after the UK voted for Brexit, there has been little sign of buyer's remorse. The public, including around a third of Remainers, are largely of the view that the government should "get on with it".

But as real wages are squeezed (owing to the Brexit-linked inflationary spike) there are tentative signs that the mood is changing. In the event of a second referendum, an Opinium/Observer poll found, 47 per cent would vote Remain, compared to 44 per cent for Leave. Support for a repeat vote is also increasing. Forty one per cent of the public now favour a second referendum (with 48 per cent opposed), compared to 33 per cent last December. 

The Liberal Democrats have made halting Brexit their raison d'être. But as public opinion turns, there is no sign they are benefiting. Since the election, Vince Cable's party has yet to exceed single figures in the polls, scoring a lowly 6 per cent in the Opinium survey (down from 7.4 per cent at the election). 

What accounts for this disparity? After their near-extinction in 2015, the Lib Dems remain either toxic or irrelevant to many voters. Labour, by contrast, despite its pro-Brexit stance, has hoovered up Remainers (55 per cent back Jeremy Corbyn's party). 

In some cases, this reflects voters' other priorities. Remainers are prepared to support Labour on account of the party's stances on austerity, housing and education. Corbyn, meanwhile, is a eurosceptic whose internationalism and pro-migration reputation endear him to EU supporters. Other Remainers rewarded Labour MPs who voted against Article 50, rebelling against the leadership's stance. 

But the trend also partly reflects ignorance. By saying little on the subject of Brexit, Corbyn and Labour allowed Remainers to assume the best. Though there is little evidence that voters will abandon Corbyn over his EU stance, the potential exists.

For this reason, the proposal of a new party will continue to recur. By challenging Labour over Brexit, without the toxicity of Lib Dems, it would sharpen the choice before voters. Though it would not win an election, a new party could force Corbyn to soften his stance on Brexit or to offer a second referendum (mirroring Ukip's effect on the Conservatives).

The greatest problem for the project is that it lacks support where it counts: among MPs. For reasons of tribalism and strategy, there is no emergent "Gang of Four" ready to helm a new party. In the absence of a new convulsion, the UK may turn against Brexit without the anti-Brexiteers benefiting. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.