By H.E. Mrs. Carolina Olarte Bácares, Ambassador of Colombia to the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Colombian candidate for the International Criminal Court Judge election (2027-2036)
Seventy years ago —in 1956— amid the escalation of various global problems and conflicts within the context of what became known as the Cold War, US international jurist and diplomat Phillip Jessup wrote an article entitled “The Universal Nature of Human Problems.” In it, he questioned whether it was possible to envision any legal mechanism for resolving them. Faced with this dilemma, Jessup pointed out that, given the complexity of these issues and the intricate interests involved, it would be naive not to acknowledge that international law has inherent limitations in its effective management. He argued that behind the concept of the state and the law produced by states, as free and equal entities, lay unsettling realities that prevented consensus on solutions, or that even when consensus existed, it was ultimately disregarded when applying the rules created for that purpose.
Just as Jessup’s diagnosis remains relevant today, so too does his prediction: history teaches us that human beings, despite themselves, will continue to encounter one another, remain together, and interact. Therefore, there is a social basis for the normative —in this case the international community—, to continue to be a relevant and necessary governance scheme to guarantee stability and survival for humanity.
International law has never had an easy path to fulfilling its mission. The aspirations of equality and fraternity promoted for human society have eventually been contrasted with the irrational use of force and discrimination in the actions and motivations of States. However, if we examine the workings of international law —including its institutions such as the International Criminal Court— there are outstanding milestones that illustrate how it has been able to address highly complex problems and seemingly insurmountable controversies.
International law has done this by means of taking into account diverse interests and limited resources so as to find the best possible solution. First, it performs as a laboratory of ideas that promote a worldview in which differences can coexist, and the disparity of resources can be managed to avoid severe harm to humanity. Second, international law can be regarded as a legitimate arena for debate and discussion among opposing sides. Ultimately, the field had provided a key contribution in preventing the normalization of the use of force as an everyday tool. In other words, international law is a barrier against irrationality and barbarity, and it functions precisely because it is a common forum and language for States and other stakeholders to interact.
A great example that crystallizes such considerations is the International Criminal Court (ICC). Its institutional mandate to ensure that international crimes are investigated, prosecuted, and punished according to the highest standards of retributive and restorative justice, embodies the aims of legal innovation, the opportunity of deliberation and the moral standing over violence.
The ICC embodies the international community’s tradition of prosecuting the most heinous crimes, established in Nuremberg and Tokyo and progressively developed in both national court and ad hoc international tribunals. Therefore, the establishment of the Rome Statute System should be seen as a milestone for all humanity, including states that are not currently States Parties.
Be as it may, the Court’s consistent commitment to upholding human conscience in the context of the criminal responsibility of those who have led criminal actions against global legal interests is being faced through actions focused on preventing its functioning and discrediting its achievements. Such actions have come to dispute its very existence and continuity as a cornerstone of international law.
Against this backdrop, and with the conviction that the ICC should be supported to remain the arena for the most significant developments in the field of international criminal justice, Colombia decided to support its continuity by submitting my candidacy as an ICC judge for the next election process, corresponding to the period 2027-2036. I am originally and have conducted most of my professional work in Colombia, a country that suffered a prolonged and degrading internal armed conflict.
Therefore, I believe its experience in seeking a just and lasting peace through transitional justice could be instrumental for empowering the already prevailing work of the ICC. Moreover, to reaffirm the latter´s legitimacy as a unique mechanism for maintaining global peace and security while promoting the rights of the victims and social reconciliation.
From my work as an international law practitioner before international tribunals, I have observed that the system is under considerable pressure from those who tend to discredit norms and decisions when they do not align with their particular interests. However, since its inception in the post-war era, international criminal law has been conceived as a means of holding those responsible for the graves offenses accountable, thus preventing a relapse of violence and other structural causes of such crimes. Therefore, ensuring consistency in the application of international decisions is crucial, as selectivity cannot be an option in a rules-based international order.
In turn, the many years I have devoted to human rights and transitional justice scholarship in a complex context such as Colombia’s, have conveyed a powerful idea to me: that the already legitimate objectives of international criminal justice can be amplified even further if, in addition to fulfilling its retributive function, it can also promote the redress of harm caused by such illegal conduct. Whereas the ICC has already taken important steps in such direction, I think that more can be done to ensure that the scope of the ICC is leveraged to contribute to international peace and security from the perspective of the victims, who are the ones who remind us why we are here and why we do what we do.
Finally, the ICC embodies one of our species’ greatest aspirations: to coexist despite our differences, so that the social conflicts that naturally arise from these divergences —including international crimes— can be addressed through non-violent means and thus meet social expectations on accountability. As a diplomat based in the City of International Peace and Justice, I have been able to deepen my capacity to fully apprehend the mechanisms involved in the quest for cooperation and consensus, which happen to be fundamental for the exercise of judicial functions under the constant pressure of multifaceted political dynamics.
All in all, the ICC is a cornerstone of the international justice system, whose objective is to protect individuals from the indiscriminate use of violence and to promote accountability for human rights violations and the commission of international crimes. With this in mind, my candidature seeks to draw upon the experience gained by many countries and more recently condensed by Colombia`s peace laboratory, with its transitional justice and peacebuilding project, to strengthen the mechanisms the Court already uses to fulfill its mandate.
