The United Nations Security Council authorized the creation of a new criminal tribunal yesterday. This tribunal is to investigate and prosecute “the masterminds of the February 2005 suicide bombing that killed former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri and 22 others.” This will be the first internationalized criminal tribunal related to the Middle East. When it came to the Security Council vote, China, Qatar, South Africa, Indonesia, and the Russian Federation abstained. (With regard to South Africa, the abstention is part of a pattern of voting and state practice in recent years that has hesitated to apply international criminal and human rights law. This pattern of state behavior has not gone unnoticed or immune from critical commentary, particularly given how international human rights law was effectively mobilized as one factor bringing about the formal end of apartheid).
The United States is a strong supporter of this new tribunal — once again demonstrating the U.S.’s support for the idea of criminal trials for serious crimes, so long as the institution cannot independently assert jurisdiction over U.S. citizens. Hence the U.S. preference for specialized tribunals created by the Security Council, over which the U.S. exercises a veto, instead of the permanent International Criminal Court (ICC). Although, even on that score, the U.S. opposition may be thawing a little bit. After all, the U.S. did not oppose the Security Council’s referral of the Darfur situation to the ICC.
The Lebanon tribunal will be a mixed (i.e. with Lebanese and non-Lebanese officials) institution based outside of Lebanon (though a specific location has not yet been determined). However, it will proceed according to Lebanese criminal law only.
With regard to the new tribunal, concern has arisen whether Syria’s alleged involvement with the assassination, if formally brought to light, may destabilize the region. The interminable peace vs. justice debate continues. Today’s WaPo reports:
Lebanon’s political leaders are deeply split over the ongoing pursuit of justice by a U.N. commission that has implicated senior pro-Syrian military officers in Lebanon, as well as Syrian officials close to President Bashar al-Assad. Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora urged the council to establish the court, while Lebanon’s pro-Syrian opposition leaders opposed the initiative and in March blocked parliamentary approval for such a court.
Posted by Mark Drumbl on May 31, 2007 at 09:17 AM
Comments
Marko Milanovic weighs in with some interesting comments on the proposed tribunal at Opinio Juris: http://www.opiniojuris.org/posts/1180575623.shtml
Posted by: Patrick S. O’Donnell | May 31, 2007 11:10:04 AM