Myanmar Spring Chronicle – November 27 Scene
(MoeMaKa, November 28, 2024)
ICC Arrest Warrant Requested for Military Leader Min Aung Hlaing
Today’s most talked-about news in Myanmar revolves around the International Criminal Court (ICC), where its Chief Prosecutor has filed a request for an arrest warrant against Min Aung Hlaing, the military leader. The charges stem from the alleged genocide of the Rohingya people in Rakhine State in 2017. The prosecutor seeks to issue the warrant based on Min Aung Hlaing’s role as a key decision-maker and commander during the atrocities.
This development raises questions about what could happen next, the ICC’s authority, and its impact. Discussions surrounding the ICC have been prominent in global news recently. Just a few weeks ago, the ICC issued arrest warrants for three individuals, including Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, a former Israeli defense minister, and a leader of Hamas, an organization considered a terrorist group by some countries. These moves sparked controversy and debate in Western media.
The Myanmar Case:
It has taken nearly seven years to reach the point of requesting an arrest warrant for the crimes committed against the Rohingya minority in 2017. In contrast, arrest warrants related to incidents in the Israel-Palestine conflict, which occurred within the past year, were issued more swiftly. The time gap has led to speculation about the underlying factors influencing these decisions.
The ICC was established in 1998 through the Rome Statute, signed in Rome, Italy. It aims to prosecute individuals for crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. The ICC is distinct from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which handles cases between states rather than individuals. Unlike the ICJ, which operates under the United Nations, the ICC functions independently.
The ICJ has also been involved in Myanmar’s case, following a 2019 lawsuit filed by Gambia concerning the atrocities committed against the Rohingya.
Jurisdictional Challenges:
The ICC’s jurisdiction extends to the 124 countries that are signatories to the Rome Statute. Myanmar is not among these nations. However, the ICC argues jurisdiction over the crimes because neighboring Bangladesh, where nearly a million Rohingya refugees fled, is a signatory.
Questions of Enforcement:
Even when arrest warrants are issued, enforcement remains a challenge. For instance, Russian President Vladimir Putin faces an ICC warrant related to the Ukraine conflict but has not been apprehended. Similarly, the recent warrants for Israeli leaders and a Hamas official are unlikely to result in arrests, given geopolitical realities.
In the past, ICC warrants against African leaders and warlords often went unenforced. This history highlights the difficulties of holding individuals accountable when powerful states oppose the ICC’s actions.
International Reaction and Criticism:
The U.S., which is not a Rome Statute signatory, has criticized the ICC’s recent actions, including its move against Israeli officials. Some American lawmakers have even threatened sanctions against key ICC figures.
Implications for Myanmar:
While many in Myanmar welcome the prospect of accountability for military leaders like Min Aung Hlaing, the practical likelihood of enforcement remains uncertain. Political and geopolitical dynamics, both domestic and international, will play a decisive role in determining whether the arrest warrant leads to tangible outcomes.
In summary, the ICC’s efforts to promote global justice are often hampered by the power dynamics of influential nations, which can obstruct its mission to uphold the rule of law. For Myanmar, the arrest warrant symbolizes a step toward justice, but its execution remains a distant and uncertain prospect.