The Impact of International Criminal Court Arrest Warrants on Peace Processes

On July 17, 1998, the international community created the Rome Statute, the document outlining the creation of the ICC. The Rome Statute was ratified by 60 countries by July 1, 2002, making the ICC a legitimate and operating institution (About the Court). The ICC is able to prosecute four categories of crime – genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression (Schabas 2011, 88) – for which it has temporal jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and territorial jurisdiction. Temporal jurisdiction limits the court to only considering crimes that occurred after the Rome Statute was ratified (Schabas 2011, 69). Personal jurisdiction allows the court to consider crimes where the accused is a national of a state party regardless of where the crimes occurred (Schabas 2011, 76). Finally, territorial jurisdiction empowers the ICC to exercise jurisdiction over crimes that occur within the territory of a state party to the ICC or where the United Nations Security Council gives jurisdiction to crimes occurring in a particular territory (Schabas 2011, 81). The ICC was created to end impunity for international criminals, and to subsequently stop and prevent international atrocities (Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 2002, 1). Although the creation of a court to end impunity for international crimes was celebrated by many, critics worried about the impact of the ICC in ongoing conflicts. Specifically, some scholars argued that, “When faced with indictment and punishment, a human rights abuser might in fact dig in his heels, and refuse to give up or compromise” (Ginsburg 2009, 502). This debate over the ICC has been termed the “peace versus justice” debate with scholars wondering if the ICC forces a choice between peace and justice. The question this thesis grapples with is the whether the ICC does pursue justice to the detriment of a peace process.Bachelor of Art