06.08.09 - International criminal tribunals have been subjected to much criticism over the years for being too slow and too costly. Part of the case against them is unfair: justice can hardly be reduced to its financial cost and it requires time to proceed in orderly fashion. Part of the criticism is, however, well justified and various tribunals have, therefore, sought to reduce the cost of their proceedings and taken measures to shorten these proceedings.
Whilst it certainly is not the sole, nor perhaps even the primary, consideration relevant to assessing the work of international criminal tribunals, the financial cost of these tribunals is a factor of relevance in assessing their work and performance. It is particularly so when donors have to decide between various models for the courts and tribunals that they are setting up (national, international, internationalized, etc). If local jurisdictions can do the same job at a fraction of the cost, why bother with an international tribunal? It is also relevant because we, taxpayers of the world, are paying for these tribunals and they owe it to us to spend our money as responsibly as they can. Finally, it might be relevant to evaluating the “quality” of justice that these tribunals are generating: if the money that is spent on these institutions goes into feeding new international bureaucracies rather than paying for the core activities of the judicial institution (investigative, prosecutorial, judicial and defence work), there may be a case to ask for their reform.
Since it was created, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has spent almost half a billion euro. Considering that only one trial – and a relatively minor one by international standards – has started before the ICC (after about 6 years of existence), this seems – and is – a staggering figure. What is equally staggering is the structure that is put in place around the beating heart of the ICC: its courtroom. With only one trial going on, the ICC now has a budget of 101,000,000€ and the ICC website tells us that as of January 2009, 285 women and 302 men worked for the ICC (i.e., 587 employees). By comparison, the ICTY has a biennium budget for 2008-2009 of 238,000,000€, so approximately 120,000,000€/year for over 1,118 employees (see http://www.icty.org/sid/325) with 7 on-going trials, 5 appeals (plus contempt matters) and 3 cases in preparation at the pre-trial stage. With almost twice the staff and much greater judicial activity, the ICTY is costing almost the same as the ICC. Despite this, the ICTY has been criticized for being too expensive. In those circumstances, what should be said of the ICC?
Certainly, running international criminal tribunals costs money. There comes a point, however, when the gap between what is being achieved judicially and what it costs to the international community should raise some serious concerns among those who foot the bill. Some indications are quite worrying. Some might be anecdotal (though perhaps telling of a more general problem) whilst others are better characterized as “institutional”.
In the 1-7 August 2009 issue of the magazine the Economist, the ICC purchased a full one-page advertising in the “Executive Focus” section of this magazine. For what purpose? To advertise two administrative positions that it wishes to fill. Such a page costs 21,000£. By comparison, the UN Habitat advertised in the same section of the magazine for two – hierarchically superior positions – in a quarter of page. Cost: 5,800£. Will the ICC really attract those bankers and business executives that read these pages of the Economist or should it perhaps have advertised in the cheaper and perhaps more adequate “Appointments” section of the Economist where important organizations such as the European Investment Bank or the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea consider it perfectly adequate and sufficient to advertise in a quarter of a page costing them 4,900£. Should the ICC advertise at once each and all of the positions hierarchically similar to the ones contained in the Economist advertisement (39 positions – 30 P5 and 9 D1), it would cost ICC member states (and their taxpayers) approximately 400,000£ (or 471,000€) just to advertise these positions in the pages of the Economist. By comparison, the ICTY advertise positions on free websites such as reliefweb, the UN network or its own website (www.icty.org).
It may be that this advertisement is indeed merely anecdotal. It may also be that the ICC has realized that to succeed it needs genuine managerial competence and that by putting such money up-front, it has increased its chance to attract the sort of people that it needs to revive the institution. Or it may be that the ICC suffers from institutional egomania? Whatever the answer, it is time for the ICC to promote transparency, not just financial/budgetary, but also in terms of allocations of those resources that are put at its disposal and to focus those resources onto its primary mandate, i.e., to investigate, prosecute and try criminal cases, not to create an inflated bureaucracy.
In that context, the allocations of resources between the various organs of the ICC is, well, intriguing. Sixty or so per cent of the 2009 budget goes to the Registry (60,222,700€) while the shares of the budget going to Chambers (10,332,100€) and the Office of the Prosecutor (25,528,910€) represent respectively about 10% and 25% of the budget. Together, the judicial and prosecutorial branches of the Court, therefore, cost almost half of what the administration of the Court (which, it should be said, covers the budget of defence teams) cost to the taxpayers of State Parties.
With only one trial to show for, half a billion euros is simply too much money to spend for a tribunal. 21,000£ is just too much to recruit two administrators. Time perhaps for the Court to reconsider its priorities and to spend our money more wisely.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment