Inconsistency and Impunity in International Human Rights Law: Can the International Criminal Court Solve the Problems Raised by the Rwanda and Augusto Pinochet Cases
![handle is hein.journals/gwilr33 and id is 371 raw text is: NOTE
INCONSISTENCY AND IMPUNITY IN INTERNATIONAL
HUMAN RIGHTS LAW: CAN THE INTERNATIONAL
CRIMINAL COURT SOLVE THE PROBLEMS
RAISED BY THE RWANDA AND
AUGUSTO PINOCHET CASES
Representatives from 120 countries gathered in Rome in 1998
and drafted the statute for a future International Criminal Court
(ICC) to judge those accused of genocide and other comparable
crimes.1 In order for the court to become a reality, sixty nations
must ratify the treaty before December 31, 2000.2 The ICC repre-
sents a giant step forward in the development of international
human rights law that began with the Nuremberg and Tokyo
Tribunals following World War II, and the signing of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.3 Only seven nations, includ-
ing Libya, China, Iraq, Israel and the United States, opposed crea-
tion of the new court while twenty-one others abstained from
voting.4
This Note addresses the role the ICC will play in the develop-
ment of international human rights law by examining its potential
effects on solving problems of inconsistency and impunity which
have dominated the field for the past fifty years. Looking at the
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the recent extra-
dition hearings of former Chilean dictator General Augusto
Pinochet in England, this Note considers the way international
human rights law is currently enforced. These cases, attempting to
bring international criminals to justice over the past decade,
demonstrate the inconsistent application of international human
1. Kofi Annan, New International Court Fulfills a U.N. Dream that Began in 1948, Bos-
TON GLOBE, July 31, 1998, at A19; see also Aryeh Neier, Waiting for Justice: The United States
and the International Criminal Court, 15 WORLD POL'YJ. 33, 33 (1998).
2. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, arts. 125-26, U.N. Doc. A/
CONF.183/9 (1998). [hereinafter ICC Statute]. As ofJanuary 6, 2001, 138 countries, includ-
ing the United States, have signed the treaty but only 27 have ratified it. See Clinton Signed a
Treaty He Didn't Like, But That's So Washington Can Work to Improve On It, NEWSDAY, Jan. 6,
2001, at A18.
3. See Annan, supra note 1, at A19.
4. See Helle Bering, The Rest of the World's Court, WASH. TIMES, July 30, 1998, at A23;
Barbara Slavin,Jurisdiction Worry Puts U.S. Off Court Pact: Entity's Purpose Is to Try War Crimes,
USA TODAY, July 23, 1998, at 5A.
363](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/gwilr33&div=20&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most