The Cost of Justice

by Sarah Erickson, J.D

The budget of a court sounds like a very boring and not very important issue.  This is absolutely untrue for the International Criminal Court.  A court budget affects every single aspect of the Court’s operations from office supplies to prosecuting the world’s most heinous criminals.

ICC President Chile Eboe-Osuji stated in his opening remarks of this year’s Assembly of States Parties (ASP) that, “The world’s annual military spending is $1.7 trillion. This is roughly ten thousand times larger than the budget of the ICC…If you put together all the annual program costs of the ICC from the Court’s] inception 16 years ago until today, their total sum is still less than the program cost of $2.1 billion for a single B-2 ‘Stealth Bomber’.” The world spends thousands of times more money preparing for and engaging in warfare, often by illegal means, than in trying to seek justice for the victims of atrocities and to prevent further violence.

To date, the UN Security Council owes the Court approximately $69 million by the UNSC.

Leading up to the Assembly of States Parties, the ICC’s Committee on Budget and Finance proposed a Program Budget for 2019 that totaled €147.55 million. This would have been an increase of 2.6 per cent, over the 2018 approved budget (€143.85 million). By the end of the eight days of meetings, the budget that brought consensus among the States Parties was €144,555,000, or a .49% increase over the 2018 budget. A budget increase of such a small amount means that there is no room for new investigations, Court staff are not receiving wage increases in proportion with inflation and the cost of living, and the Court’s capacity for outreach to victims, an issue that was brought up again and again as subpar and desperately in need of improvement throughout this ASP, is severely diminished.

The states that advocated for zero growth in the budget are almost exclusively states that have ongoing preliminary examinations, formal investigations, or trials occurring within them or involving their citizens. Specifically, Venezuela (ongoing preliminary examination), Kenya (multiple nationals are defendants at-large), and the UK (ongoing preliminary examination in the context of the Iraq war) all used language indicating that the Court’s budget should not be increased, and that the Court should effectively “mind its own business” in terms of the domestic affairs of those countries.

Finally, the UN Security Council owes money to the Court.  According to the rules of the Court, the UN is supposed to pay the Court for expenses related to cases that the UN refers to the Court. To date, the UN Security Council owes the Court approximately $69 million by the UNSC.

The Court’s budget has been held hostage by countries that are afraid that the Court will use that money to investigate them. On one hand, it is disappointing that states aren’t willing to repair the injustices on their own soil. On the other hand, these states’ reluctance to pay their fair share, while also remaining a part of the Court and supporting it despite threats from the United States, shows both the deterrent effect of the Court and the faith that the States Parties have in in the Court to render justice.