The Security Council unanimously voted to refer Libya to the International Criminal Court, for “widespread and systematic attacks” against citizens protesting Qaddafi. (NYT source, NYT spelling.) There’s also a bunch of sanctions in the vote.
The unanimous vote surprised me — China, betraying a friend like that? What’s going on in Beijing? Then The Globe and Mail’s Africa man, Geoffrey York, mused that Libya might stay on the Human Rights Council, because of likely Chinese opposition to its removal. Backdoor deal somewhere?
The thing is — and this could be an American bias about the relative priority of institutions, sure — isn’t an ICC referral way more important, and embarrassing, than kicking someone off the HRC? What else is being traded that we don’t know yet?
Meanwhile, what does the ICC referral mean, practically speaking? Does the Court have the staff to open a full investigation? Will Libya cooperate enough for the Prosecutor even to pursue one? Court-watchers, weigh in.
As an ICC-booster from way back, I also pronounce myself intrigued and a bit worried. They have plenty of witness support built up, but last time I checked they were relying on supporter nations for chasing down and imprisoning those indicted. But the Security Council referral only technically means that Ocampo et al are *authorized* to indict him, allowing for support for the hard work to be marshaled while that case is being formulated. I do wonder if it will happen.
Well first comes the investigation, which may turn up not enough for an indictment… but even the resources for, and political testiness of, getting a team there to investigate… ?