Protection for Families Dropped From New International Criminal Court

By Austin Ruse | December 17, 1999

     (NEW YORK – C-FAM)  UN delegates decided this week to remove explicit protection for families in the evolving International Criminal Court (ICC) statutes. A coalition of eleven Arab states proposed that "the acts (under war crimes) do not effect family matters recognized by different national laws of the State Parties." The Arab's fear that some of their family traditions, women staying at home, for instance, could be construed to have violated portions of these new criminal statutes, particularly the statute forbidding "enslavement."

     The Arab proposal under "enslavement" said, "powers attaching to ownership does not include rights, duties and obligations incident to marriage between a man and a woman or between parent and child." Reacting to the Arab proposal, the radically feminist Women Caucus accused the Arabs of "excluding a whole category of offender." Conservatives argued that the Arab language only excluded "fathers, husbands, religious leaders, and other supporting traditional family roles."

     Although proponents say the ICC will only deal with "the most serious crimes of concern to the international community," even mainstream observers believe the feminist reaction to the Arab proposal confirms the broad suspicion that the court will be used for social engineering and attacks on the family.

     The defeat of the Arab proposal demonstrates that pro-family forces at the UN can usually only work from a defensive posture. Since the UN works by consensus, meaning that every word must be agreed to by all delegations, outnumbered pro-family delegations can only stop questionable language and only rarely are they able to initiate language of their own

     The debate also shows a fundamental disagreement over legal definitions. The radical feminists seem to want the crimes to be vaguely defined so they can be more broadly reinterpreted at a later date.

     Other problems surfacing this week were questions of victim and NGO participation in the prosecution. Conservatives believe radical feminists intend to turn the new court into a hybrid civil and criminal court in which they would be able to insert themselves as parties to the litigation and receive payments of attorney's fees and damages. As parties to the process, feminist NGOs could argue for radical interpretations and applications of the ICC statute even during trial. Critics point out the addition of victims and NGOs to the process violates traditional norms of most legal systems, and would unfairly swing the balance of the proceedings against the defense and toward the prosecution.

     Victim and NGO participation could also bring long delays to the legal process. ICC critics point out that long delays have caused serious problems in the Rwandan war crimes tribunal. Out of 48 total indictments, only six cases have been resolved. The remaining defendants are being held in prison, many without court dates. Two government officials have been held since 1995, and eight have been held since 1996 with no trial dates yet set. Critics point out that, based on costs so far, trying the remaining defendants could run into billions of dollars.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter