The World

As the sham Zimbabwean election proceeds, there is increasing discussion of charging Robert Mugabe with crimes against humanity – with a view to an eventual trial at the International Criminal Court in the Hague.

Many liberals regard the establishment of the ICC as a triumph for international justice and victims’ rights- and a crucial breach in the idea of inviolable national sovereignty. They also argue that future dictators might be deterred by the sight of prosecutions in the Hague.

But - it seems to me – there are two coherent counter-arguments. The first is pragmatic. It will be much harder to persuade dictators to leave power, if they fear they may end up in the dock in the Hague. Some argue that Mr Mugabe might have agreed to go into exile, were it not for the sight of Charles Tayor - the former Liberian dictator – going on trial at the ICC. Taylor himself, it is argued, only quit office because he thought he had an amnesty. Mugabe and others like him will now never believe in amnesty offers – and so they will cling onto power regardless.  It is also argued that the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda has – perversely – been encouraged to fight on, becauses its leaders face indictments at the ICC.

There are also principled arguments against the ICC. The US has refused to recognise the court and some American conservatives – like John Bolton – are deeply sceptical of the very idea of international law. There is also a left-wing version of this argument that international justice is just politics by other means. Except that the left tends to point to the political impossibility of bringing American politicians before the ICC.

So is the ICC a fatally-flawed concept – or an important first step towards international justice? And what should be done about charging Mugabe?

I’m not sure what I think, but feel I should probably write about this some time soon. All ideas welcome