The International Criminal Court (ICC) has the legal power to issue arrest warrants, but not the political power to arrest. Rather, it must rely on other national and international actors to enforce these requests. All the actors—the ICC, the suspected war criminals, and the key state actors—in these high stakes dramas involving the apprehension of suspected war criminals have distinct interests that guide their actions. Typically, as I argue, these contending interests lead to political disputes. I will argue that the principal interest of the International Criminal Court is justice; the principal interest of the actors indicted by the ICC is power; and the principal interests of international actors are peace and justice. Further, I contend that the ability of the ICC to gain custody of suspects will be determined by its ability to induce the international community to privilege justice over peace.
Drumblsupra note 5; Kimi King and James Meernik ‘A Distant Court: Assessing the Impact of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’ in Göran Sluiter Bert Swart and Alexander Zahar (eds.) The Legacy of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (Oxford University Press Oxford 2011); David Mendeloff ‘Truth-Seeking Truth-Telling and Postconflict Peacebuilding: Curb the Enthusiasm?’ 6 International Studies Review (2004) 355–380; Jack Snyder and Leslie Vinjamuri ‘Trials and Errors: Principles and Pragmatism in Strategies of International Justice’ 28 International Security (2003/2004) 5-44.
Akhavansupra note 8.
Rod Nordland‘Pensions for War Criminals’Newsweek25 July 2005 U.S. Edition p. 44.