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

Labour must reclaim English patriotism if we are to beat Ukip and the Tories

We can't talk about the future of our country unless we can discuss the past. 

I was a parliamentary candidate for Thurrock, but the place which I currently call home is Hackney, London. This distinction is worth explaining. The questions of Labour and Englishness – what exactly is the English problem that we’re trying to solve, why do we need a progressive patriotism, does it already exist, if not why not and if we had one what would it look like? – are, above all, questions of identity and place. We need to build a patriotism that includes and resonates with residents of both Hackney and Thurrock. Currently they are very far apart. 

I’m the little girl who sat on her dad’s shoulders to wave a flag at Princess Anne’s first wedding. And I was also, like Sadiq Khan, waving a flag at the Silver Jubilee in 1977. I’m an ex-Catholic, I’m a Londoner, I’m English and I’m a woman, and all of those identities are important although not necessarily equally so and not necessarily all of the time.

But I’m also a member of the Labour party, not only as a candidate, but now as an activist in Hackney. And that is where I see the difference very strongly between Hackney and what I experienced in Thurrock. 

Thurrock was Ukip ground zero last year - 12,000 people voted for Ukip in a general election for the first time, on top of the 3,500 that had voted for them before in 2010. Most of those 12,000 people had either not voted before, or had voted Labour. 

This isn’t just about being in two different places. Sometimes it feels like more than being in two different countries, or even like being on two different planets. The reality is that large swathes of Labour’s members and supporters don’t identify as patriotic, fundamentally because patriotism has been seized and colonised by the right. We need to understand that, by allowing them to seize it, we are losing an opportunity to be able to reclaim our past. 

We do not have any legitimacy to talk about the future of our country unless we can talk about our past in a better way. We have tried but our efforts have been half-hearted. Take Ed Miliband's call for One Nation Labour, which ended up amounting to a washed-out Union Jack as a visual for our brand. It could have been so much better – an opportunity for an intellectual rebranding and a seizure of Conservative territory for our own ends. Ultimately One Nation Labour was a slogan and not a project. 

There is a section of the left which has a distinct discomfort with the idea of pride in country. It has swallowed the right-wing myth that England’s successes have all been Conservative ones. This is a lie, but one that has spread very effectively. The left’s willingness to swallow it means that we are still living in a Thatcherite paradigm. It is no wonder progressives revolt at the idea of patriotism, when the right’s ideas of duty and authority quash our ideas of ambitions for equality, opportunity for all and challenging injustice. But we risk denying our successes by allowing the right to define Englishness. It’s England that helped establish the principle of the right to vote, the rule of law, equal suffrage, and the fight against racism. 

If Englishness is going to mean anything in modern England, it needs to be as important for those who feel that perhaps they aren’t English as it is for those who feel that they definitely are. And a place must be reserved for those who, though technically English, don’t see their own story within the Conservative myth of Englishness. 

Although this reclaiming is electorally essential, it is not an electoral gimmick. It is fundamental to who we are. Even if we didn’t need it to win, I would be arguing for it.

We need to make sure that progressive patriotism reclaims the visual language that the Conservatives use to dress up their regressive patriotism. Women need to be as much in the pantheon of the radicals as part of the visual identity of Englishness. Women tend to either be there by birth or by marriage, or we are abstract manifestations of ideals like "justice" or "truth" – as seen on city halls and civic buildings across the country. But English women need to be real, rather than just ideal. Englishness does need to be focused on place and connection, and it should include Mary Wollstonecraft and Sylvia Pankhurst as well as Wat Tyler and Thomas Paine. 

We can’t pretend that we’re always right. The most patriotic thing you can do is to admit sometimes that you’re wrong, so that your country can be better. I love my country, for all its faults. But I do not live with them. I try to make my country better. That is progressive patriotism. And I know all of us who want to be part of this can be part of it. 

This article is based on Polly’s contribution to Who Speaks to England? Labour’s English challenge, a new book published today by the Fabian Society and the Centre for English Identity and Politics at the University of Winchester.