Transcending the double-bind of humanitarian intervention: The costs of action and inaction
Date
2019-01-15
Authors
Jacob, Cecilia
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group
Abstract
“The ICC [International Criminal Court] is dead to us,” claimed US National Security Advisor John
Bolton on Monday 10 September 2018 when he confirmed that the US would not cooperate
with any efforts to bring US soldiers to trial for atrocities committed in Afghanistan.1
Bolton’s statement coincides with a recent ruling from the pre-trial chamber of the ICC that
determined jurisdiction for some of the atrocities committed by the Myanmar regime against
the Rohingya population that were deported to Bangladesh in late 2017. Limited by the fact
that the ICC only has jurisdiction in Bangladesh as a member to the Rome Statue, and therefore
cannot prosecute crimes committed solely in Myanmar, the ruling at least creates an inroad for
accountability by determining the commission of atrocities and attributing blame. A UN Security Council referral is needed to extend the jurisdiction of the ICC to Myanmar – a referral that is
inconceivable at this current historical juncture where the US, but also China and Russia that are
needed to support the referral, have opposed such a move. Once again, power politics trumps
international justice for crimes against humanity.
Description
Keywords
humanitarian intervention, justice, action, inaction, international, book review
Citation
Collections
Source
Journal of Genocide Research
Type
Journal article
Book Title
Entity type
Access Statement
License Rights
Restricted until
2037-12-31
Downloads
File
Description