|
Article Excerpt
On February 14, 2005, a car bomb shook Beirut, taking the life of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. Soon afterward, a series of events unfolded leading to a near-total political paralysis in Lebanon (1): a vacant presidential seat, a government whose constitutionality was doubted by a considerable part of the population, and a parliament that failed even to convene. In the middle of the turmoil, the Lebanese government's proposals to establish an international commission to investigate the Hariri assassination and later a "Tribunal of International Character" to try those accused found an open ear in the UN Security Council, which decided to endorse them under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. But while the Security Council seems determined to push on with the tribunal, many Lebanese--reflecting the views of many of their political leaders--consider the process a serious threat to Lebanon's sovereignty, question its legitimacy, or are actively working to impede it. However, political viewpoints such as these reflect a denial or a lack of understanding of the constraining influence of international law. Before any position can be taken, therefore, it is important to fully understand the meaning and implications of the Hariri tribunal. The aim of this article is to show that no future Lebanese government or parliament, regardless of its form or the composition of its membership, and no effort by any Lebanese political group, can change or abrogate unilaterally the agreements that were made between the United Nations and the Lebanese government. This is so because of the applicability of the Laws of Treaties under international law and the various UN Chapter VII resolutions that were passed to back up these agreements.
EVOLUTION OF INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW
Following the end of the World War II, in 1945, the international community took measures to ensure that a similar war would never take place. Two measures were most important: the establishment of an international organization to guarantee international peace and security by collectively confronting any "threat to the peace, breach of peace or act of aggression," (2) and the establishment of a legal framework to ensure that the horrific crimes committed during the war would not go unpunished. The United Nations was established in the place of its predecessor, the League of Nations, and international tribunals were established in Germany and Japan to try war criminals. For the first time ever, individuals became subjects rather than mere objects of international law. (3) Henceforth states were to be treated not as legal abstractions, but as institutions run by individuals who could be held ultimately responsible for their wrongful acts, even if these were done in the name of the state. (4)
Hence, the Nuremberg Tribunal for Germany and the International Military Tribunal in Tokyo for the Far East were authorized and empowered to individually try the high-ranking German and Japanese officials charged with crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. (5) The two major shortcomings of these courts, however, were that their jurisdiction only covered crimes that were committed during wartime (1939-45) by persons who held governmental posts (civilian or military). These shortcomings were later addressed by a second major development in international criminal law: the Convention against Genocide of 1948, which broadened the limits set previously to include any individual who commits an act of genocide (6) in peace or in wartime, regardless of whether he or she is a government job-holder. (7)
A third important development in international criminal law was the establishment by the Security Council of international courts to punish crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia (Resolution 808/ 1993) and Rwanda (Resolution 955/1994). (8) This step gave international law jurisdiction inside the boundaries of the nation-state itself, (9) for now individuals who committed crimes against their own countrymen in their own country also fell under the eye of the international community. In 1998, in response to a growing international consensus that the world should not have to wait for a decision from the Security Council every time a crime against peace or humanity or an act of genocide or aggression happens, the Rome Statute was signed. It established a permanent court, the International Criminal Court (ICC), which came into force in July 2000. The ICC cannot investigate crimes against peace (aggression), because the signatories were unable to agree on a common definition for it. It can, however, look into the other crimes mentioned above, whether they happened within a state or outside it, and whether a state is a member of the ICC or not, although in the latter case a Chapter VII resolution from the Security Council is needed. (10)
In addition to the international courts, various regional courts were established in accordance with Security Council resolutions in order to punish violators in internal wars as well. One of these, like that in Sierra Leone, (11) became an example of mixed courts, (12) whose composition is jointly determined by the country concerned and the Security Council and whose decisions are guided by international as well as local constitutional law. (13)
Today, international criminal law not only presents an efficient legal means of punishing the perpetrators of serious crimes but also forms a deterrent that may prevent the repetition of these crimes in the future. (14) This is reinforced by the fact that no defendant found guilty by the ICC can be pardoned by any party or state other than the court itself, as stated in Article 29 of the ICC statute. (15)
HARIRI TRIBUNAL
Political Context
Ever since its inception, Lebanon has been a unique demographic mosaic of Muslims and Christians, interacting with each other and sharing a common land but never reaching a point of fusion. While this makes Lebanon unique, it is also the cause of its misfortunes. There are 18 official religious groups in the country, each with its own agenda, political support, external allies and even its own definition of who is a Lebanese patriot and who is not. (16) Perhaps the widest divide has been that between the Christians who fought for a totally independent Lebanon and the Muslims who insisted on looking upon Lebanon as a part of Greater Syria. Today, despite numerous crises and one civil war, these two visions are as vivid as ever, with one group still insisting on an independent Lebanon and beseeching the West for help to achieve this goal, and the other group still determined to keep Lebanon attached to Syria and the Arab cause generally. In practice, this has meant resisting Israel militarily even when other Arabs decide to walk the negotiations path. What has changed, however, is that...
|
