Enforcing global justice has to be the legal challenge of all time. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has global authority, but its executive power is limited to a few buildings in the Hague and its budget to $125 million, 30 times smaller than the NYPD's. And its mandate to prosecute the world's worst offences is rejected by the governments of more than half the world's people.
On March 4, the ICC issued a warrant for Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity the first time in the court's history it has charged a sitting head of state. There is almost no hope the warrant will be served. "As soon as al-Bashir flies outside Sudan, he could be arrested," ICC chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo, told Al Jazeera on March 3. Which is to say, never.
The ICC is undermined by several enduring controversies. Supporters say lasting peace demands justice. They point to the arrest and conviction of Sierra Leone's warlords in a joint UN-Sierra Leonean process, which has not restarted that nation's conflict. Opponents, for their part, cite the 2005 indictment of Ugandan militia leader Joseph Kony, which led him to spurn talks.
There are also questions over how all-encompassing the ICC's role really is. It was set up in 2002 after just 66 countries out of 195 ratified its founding statute and Russia, China and the U.S. have still not done so. Its ad hoc predecessors may have prosecuted leaders from around the globe, but so far the ICC has only indicted Africans: in the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan and Uganda. "That," says African Union chairman, Jean Ping, "is a problem."
The danger is that the victims of the world's worst crimes are lost in all this noise. In Sudan's case, that would be the 300,000 dead and 2.7 million who have been forced to flee their homes in Darfur. Global justice might be tough to implement. Those figures are why it's worth trying.