New International Court Nears Reality/Pro-lifers Claim Small Victories

By Austin Ruse

     (NEW YORK – C-FAM)  UN pro-life lobbyists are cautiously optimistic that the new International Criminal Court (ICC) will not be able to advance or enforce abortion rights. Governmental negotiators, meeting frequently since the summer of 1998, last week finished the most contentious part of the statutes that will bring into existence the world's first permanent Nuremberg style criminal court. Negotiators finished the procedures of the court [how the court will function] and the elements of crime [the elements that must be present to bring a prosecution].

     ICC will differ from the currently existing International Court of Justice, which only hears cases between governments. The ICC will only prosecute individuals for what proponents describe as "the most serious crimes of concern to the international community," specifically war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.

     Pro-life lobbyists have been concerned from the beginning that the new court will be an engine for radical social change, particularly in the area of reproductive rights, which according to UN agencies includes access to abortion. Their concerns continued to grow with the continuously expanding influence of what is called the Women's Caucus for Gender Justice, a coalition of radical feminist non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

     One of the longest running battles has come over the term "forced pregnancy." This term was introduced more than a year ago and radical feminists have insisted it only means repeated rape and confinement for the purposes of ethnic cleansing. Pro-lifers discovered that radical feminists used the term in a 1991 Utah court case to mean that a woman could not get an abortion. Pro-lifers feared that without a narrow definition the court would be used to change national laws on abortion and to prosecute well known pro-life advocates. In the end the term was agreed upon in the narrowest sense.

     Also hotly debated was the role of the victim in the prosecutions. Radicals had hoped that victims could become a party to the prosecution, rather than only participate as witnesses. Moreover, court radicals hoped for an expanded definition of victim that would have included all those "emotionally" effected by the crime, who could then receive court ordered financial awards. Critics believe this would been a financial engine for radical NGOs. This was also struck from the statutes.

     While pro-lifers won some narrow victories in the negotiations, broad questions about the court still stand. Conservatives remain deeply skeptical that the new court will watch out for individual liberties and national sovereignty. "This court claims for itself jurisdiction over every person on earth," says Richard Wilkins of Brigham Young University Law School. "This makes it an organ of international government. That is new and very dangerous."

     The ICC comes into existence when 60 nations have ratified it. So far 13 have agreed. An aggressive and well funded campaign for quick ratification is under way under the direction of the World Federalist Society head William Pace.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter