It’s partially because the ICC doesn’t usually get involved if there’s a domestic prosecution. A lot of war criminal heads of state are put on trial locally after being deposed and the ICC doesn’t get involved in those situations unless there’s a request from the new government.
So, take heart. Lots of world leaders have faced consequences for atrocities. Just not at The Hague. Plus, the Rome Statute that setup the ICC was only signed in 1996 and they only have jurisdiction in the green parts of the map on that page.
This feels like a big deal. I can’t remember any world leaders actually having consequences for their actions in my lifetime
Slobodan Milošević
Saddam Hussein
Muammar al-Gaddafi
Bashar Al Assad (not full deserved consequences, but he still got evicted)
I feel like he got out just in time. Otherwise he would’ve been the next Qaddafi. Which he fully deserves FYI.
Valid.
I guess none that I specifically remember in my 28 years so far.
It’s partially because the ICC doesn’t usually get involved if there’s a domestic prosecution. A lot of war criminal heads of state are put on trial locally after being deposed and the ICC doesn’t get involved in those situations unless there’s a request from the new government.
So, take heart. Lots of world leaders have faced consequences for atrocities. Just not at The Hague. Plus, the Rome Statute that setup the ICC was only signed in 1996 and they only have jurisdiction in the green parts of the map on that page.