The Missing Pillar in Global Justice
By Pawan Kumar
When the Worldwide Felony Courtroom (ICC) got here into pressure on July 1, 2002, it was hailed as a watershed second within the historical past of worldwide justice—a everlasting tribunal empowered to attempt people, together with heads of state, for the gravest crimes beneath worldwide regulation: genocide, battle crimes, crimes towards humanity, and, since 2018, the crime of aggression.
Now, because the ICC approaches its twenty fourth anniversary, its achievements and shortcomings invite recent scrutiny. However what’s equally hanging is the persistent absence of one of many world’s largest democracies—India—from its fold.
Regardless of serving to form the Rome Statute and taking part robustly within the Courtroom’s negotiations, India in the end refused to signal the treaty, citing considerations about nationwide sovereignty, exclusion of nuclear weapons and terrorism from the statute, and potential prosecutorial overreach. But, in doing so, India might have ceded the possibility to form the very establishment it helped beginning.
WHY THE ICC MATTERS MORE THAN EVER
The ICC stands in the present day because the courtroom of final resort, intervening solely when nationwide techniques are unable or unwilling to prosecute egregious crimes. Its energy shouldn’t be in sweeping arrests, however in its symbolism: a world consensus that no particular person—irrespective of how highly effective—is above the regulation.
In an period the place nationalism usually trumps accountability, this precept is extra important than ever. The ICC’s insistence on no immunity for sitting heads of state or high-ranking officers reaffirms the worldwide dedication to justice over political comfort.
India, with its wealthy authorized heritage and practical democracy, must be a pure ally of this precept. As a substitute, its absence is more and more jarring.
INDIA’S REASONS—AND THE REAL RISKS
India’s official reservations have remained constant:
1. The Safety Council’s unchecked energy to refer instances to the ICC, giving disproportionate affect to the P5 nations.
2. Exclusion of terrorism and nuclear warfare from the Courtroom’s jurisdiction—areas India considers crucial to its safety pursuits.
3. Worry of politically motivated prosecutions focusing on Indian officers, notably in conflict-ridden areas like Kashmir and the Northeast.
But these fears could also be overstated, if not completely unfounded. The Rome Statute’s precept of complementarity means the ICC solely steps in if a state fails to prosecute. India’s sturdy judiciary and constitutional protections already present substantial safeguards.
Furthermore, claims of vulnerability—like Indian officers being arrested overseas on ICC warrants—are largely speculative, given the Courtroom’s reliance on judicial panels and due course of earlier than any arrest or prosecution is allowed.
A MISSED OPPORTUNITY FOR LEADERSHIP
India’s absence from the ICC isn’t only a authorized technicality—it’s a missed alternative to guide. As a self-declared “Vishwa Guru”, India champions democratic values, the rule of regulation, and international peace. However by standing exterior the ICC, it undermines that declare. The symbolism is stark: a rustic that helped free Bangladesh from genocide and tried a former prime minister for abuse of energy now opts out of the worldwide justice system.
Take into account the Bashir case: when former Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir, beneath an ICC arrest warrant, attended the 2015 India-Africa Discussion board Summit in New Delhi, international calls to detain him went unanswered. India, not being a member, was not legally certain to conform. However morally and diplomatically, it uncovered a contradiction between India’s democratic beliefs and its strategic warning.
TIME TO JOIN, AND REFORM FROM WITHIN
India’s continued absence from the ICC sends a message—that justice is negotiable, that international accountability may be overridden by home political anxieties. But when India is to be taken significantly as a world energy, it should rise above this strategic ambivalence.
Becoming a member of the ICC doesn’t imply surrendering sovereignty. It means asserting management—serving to depoliticize UN Safety Council referrals, advocating for inclusion of terrorism and nuclear crimes, and reinforcing judicial independence via significant reform.
India has achieved this earlier than. Its position in shaping post-colonial authorized orders, its personal constitutional commitments to equality and justice, and its custom of judicial activism place it in a singular place to strengthen the ICC from inside.
CONCLUSION: STANDING ALONE OR STANDING APART?
As international authoritarianism surges and multilateralism falters, India’s exclusion from the ICC isn’t just strategic—it’s symbolic. It suggests retreat, not management. Hesitation, not imaginative and prescient.
To guide in worldwide regulation, India should stand for it. The ICC is probably not good, however by remaining exterior, India limits its energy to affect it, reform it, and reinforce the worldwide norm that nobody is above justice.
The world is watching. The query shouldn’t be whether or not India wants the ICC.
The true query is: Can international justice be entire with out India?
—The author teaches at Amity Regulation Faculty, Amity College, Noida
