Legal Literacy - This article discusses how the Rome Statute became a new hope for the International Community.

The Swedish Ambassador to the UN, Pierre Schori, made a statement shortly after the World Trade Center twin towers were destroyed by terrorists: "The September 11 attacks were the worst brutal killings of civilians by terrorists, which should be interpreted as 'crimes against humanity' and the perpetrators must be brought to the International Court. In this situation, the Rome Statute has created a new chapter for the International Community in International Law which will undoubtedly have an impact on direct actions and human behavior.”

Protection and Justice for the International Community

The idea of an International Court trying cases of crimes committed abroad has actually been around for a long time. Of course, many serious International crimes and human rights violations cannot be tried by the country where the crime was committed because the justice system lacks credibility or because the law is merely a tool of power. In conclusion, crime without consequence or impunity is a cruel truth that must be accepted, especially in countries with authoritarian governments. For example, crimes can be committed there without consequences. After decades of our people being forced to submit to impunity, even if there is a court for those who violate human rights, that court is a new reality.

There is an International Court; it is known as the International Court of Justice, and it was formed by the United Nations. Its headquarters are in The Hague, Netherlands. Its existence is to try international crimes including crimes war and crimes against human rights, the International Court of Justice is considered insufficient.

In terms of trying cases involving countries rather than “people” who commit crimes, the International Court of Justice is more effective. That is why the Nuremberg Tribunal was established after World War II for war criminals. And therefore, a special court was established, such as the case of Rwanda, to handle the genocide case in the former Yugoslavia.

This is not a permanent court; all of this is handled by ad hoc courts that require a decision from the UN Security Council. The UN Security Council's resolution actually depends heavily on political interactions between its member states, which in turn depends on the differing political interests of each country.