Will Calls for an International Anti-Corruption Court Succeed in Cracking Down on High-Level Officials?

The Netherlands, Canada, and Ecuador supported calls for the establishment of an international anti-corruption court. They claimed that this judicial body would contribute to addressing what it called the “thieves’ rule.”

The foreign ministers of the three countries have backed a campaign to create an anti-corruption court that will operate under similar frameworks to the International Criminal Court, based in The Hague.

After the meeting in The Hague, Dutch Foreign Minister Wopke Hoekstra said that the Netherlands, Canada, and Ecuador share a common intention that this could eventually lead to the establishment of an international anti-corruption court.

 

Anti-Corruption Court

The Dutch minister stressed that this court would provide the international community with an additional tool to implement existing anti-corruption laws.

US District Judge Mark Wolf, who is leading the campaign, said the court would focus on the highest level of officials and the people they bribe.

He said, in a discussion on the sidelines of a ministerial meeting, that the culture of facing corruption starts from the top down.

Supporters of the court acknowledge that there is still a long way to go before it becomes a reality. They agree that it could face challenges similar to those facing the International Criminal Court, which was set up in 2002 to prosecute individuals for war crimes.

The International Criminal Court, for example, is unable to arrest suspects, and it relies on member states to do so, with varying success.

The Dutch city of The Hague already hosts a large number of international courts, including the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice, which deal with disputes between United Nations member states.

The American Academy for Art and Science published a report stating, “Some concerns were raised about the creation of an IACC. Perhaps the most important concern was a lack of buy-in from major global powers like Russia, China, and the United States.”

 

Corrupted Systems

189 parties, including 181 countries, have signed the United Nations Convention against Corruption, a treaty aimed at stopping graft around the world, “yet corrupt rulers get away with it because they control the administration of justice in the countries they rule,” according to Judge Wolf.

The United Nations figures revealed that the world loses about two billion dollars annually in spending on purchases due to corruption.

With an overall score of 39 out of 100 for the fourth year in a row, no country in the Arab region has recorded a significant improvement on the Corruption Perceptions Index 2021. Transparency International explains that systemic political misconduct and special interests pursued at the expense of the public interest have allowed exposure to corruption. The region, already devastated by many protracted conflicts, is set to be further devastated by corruption and human rights abuses during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The organization’s report, issued today, Tuesday, says that the United Arab Emirates (which has a score of 68 on the Corruption Perceptions Index) and Qatar (63rd) are the best performers in the region, while Libya (17th) and Yemen (16th) are the best performers in the region. War-torn Syria (13th) is the worst.

Nearly a decade after the Arab Spring protests swept the region, political corruption continues to impede the fight against corruption and progress toward democracy.

 

Likely Challenges

The Corruption court may face similar challenges as the International Criminal Court, or as it is called - the Court of Last Resort - which was established under the Rome Statute. It is considered the first permanent international court specialized in criminal law.

It is charged with holding individuals responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity, crimes of genocide, and crimes of aggression, which together constitute crimes of an international nature, as the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court is held to consider these crimes when the national judiciary shows inability or reluctance to investigate or prosecute these crimes and their perpetrators.

This court would not have appeared if it had not been recognized by the international community by ratifying its statute, not to mention the commitment of non-party states as a result of their ratification of the four Geneva Conventions in 1949, which have become part of customary international law.

However, the court faces many challenges, the first of which is national sovereignty. Despite the emphasis on the principle of complementarity and on giving priority to jurisdiction to the national judiciary and non-interference in the internal affairs of the state’s parties, there are countries that consider that giving jurisdiction to the International Criminal Court detracts from their sovereignty.

This is in addition to its reservation on the subjection of its citizens, especially those who enjoy immunity, to the jurisdiction of the International Court, despite the fact that the aim of establishing the International Criminal Court is to perpetuate the principle of non-impunity and not to invoke official positions, whatever they may be.

This is what happened when Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir was investigated for committing international crimes in the Darfur region while he was exercising his position as president of the state of Sudan.

Imposing an obligation on states to cooperate with the court also constitutes a second challenge to its effectiveness, as the investigation is initiated by the court on the territory of the country in which the crime occurred, and that country is the one in charge of collecting evidence and arresting the accused. Without accepting this obligation to cooperate with the Tribunal, the latter will not be able to proceed with the investigative proceedings.

For example, a request for the arrest of diplomats who are outside their country cannot be submitted unless the court obtains the approval of the country of which the diplomatic person holds nationality.

As for the third and final challenge, it concerns the position of states regarding the ratification of the Statute of the International Criminal Court, as non-ratification restricts the court’s hand in exercising its jurisdiction over that country, which leads to impunity for criminals.

The United States of America, China, and Russia are examples of countries opposing the jurisdiction of this court, as the United States exerted pressure at the Rome Conference on United Nations peacekeeping operations and prevented the extradition of American nationals to the International Tribunal.