Since the establishment of the International Criminal Court, countries that might otherwise… Since the establishment of the International Criminal Court, countries that might otherwise be unable to solve problems concerning war crimes, crimes against humanity, crimes of aggression or genocide have been able to look to the ICC for help.

Larry D. Johnson, assistant secretary general of legal affairs at the United Nations, delivered a lecture on the advancement of international justice at Pitt Thursday.

The lecture was sponsored by the Center for International Legal Education and the Pitt School of Law.

In 1998, governments worldwide signed an international treaty to create the ICC, a court that would intervene under the circumstance of extreme crimes.

“ICC is complementary,” Johnson said. “Local courts are given the chance to solve problems, but if they are unable judges can take it from the local court and bring the trial to The Hague, Netherlands.”

The ICC has arbitrated five major cases in Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Cambodia and Lebanon. In the cases of Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the United Nations ordered these trials to halt crimes against humanity. Sierra Leone, Cambodia and Lebanon requested ICC intervention because they could not sustain sufficient trials on their own.

“In theory, each country is expected to try and punish its own war criminals,” Dr. Charli Carpenter, professor of public and international affairs, said. “Because countries seldom do so, in a few cases, the United Nations has set up international courts to judge the accused.”

Johnson said that proceedings for ICC trials are not confined to the headquarters in the Hague. He argued that in many cases, the best results come from trials located where crimes were committed.

“Local people feel helpless and fear government officials.” Johnson said.

In Sierra Leone, people were tried for kidnapping and recruiting children for the military. Trials were held in Freetown, the capital of Sierra Leone, where the community could publicly watch tapes of court proceedings on huge screens. Witnessing criminals who had hurt their community be punished helps the local people find peace, Johnson said.

For nine years the ICC has operated to mediate in cases of international atrocities, but not without flaw.

Pitt Law Student Benjamin Klein, who attended the lecture, said that in his studies of comparative politics and international studies as an undergraduate student, he found that the problem with ICC courts are that they cost millions of dollars and can last decades.

Although at a slow pace, the ICC is inching its way towards international justice. “It’s a significant step in the right direction that the world is willing to try and punish adults who would force children to fight their wars,” Carpenter said.

Success does not come easy for the ICC. Because these courts combine judges from countries around the world, there is conflict between proponents of civil or common law, explained Johnson.

Civil law is based on a predetermined set of principles. In civil law courts the accused persons are not given the chance to defend themselves or plea bargain. Common law courts embrace plea bargains and criminal testimony. Therefore, ICC judges struggle to find common ground to run a trial.

The ICC’s greatest success is informing the public. Leaders that commit crimes against humanity lie and deceive their citizens. The ICC allows people in the region to understand the truth.

“The people can watch criminals admit they did terrible things,” said Johnson. “Now they know that this is not fiction.”