International Justice Day 2021: To Stop Mass Atrocities, Address How They’re Funded

The following article was written to mark International Justice Day (17 July 2021) and is based on ongoing research I am conducting into the linkages between mass atrocities and transnational organized crime (see here for some preliminary insights). A version of the piece was originally published at Al Jazeera.

LRA is a smaller problem of CAR – DaveBugzy
Ivory in the custody of Ugandan armed forces (Photo: Dave Bugzy)

Mass atrocities don’t come cheap.

A common misconception is that everything must fail in order for international crimes – war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide – to be perpetrated against civilian populations. On the contrary, many things need to align for governments, terrorists, or rebel groups to commit atrocities. They need persuasive politics, organised institutions prepared to follow orders, and buy-in from key constituencies. And they need money – lots of it.

After another year in which the demand for accountability for international crimes far outweighed the supply of justice, this July 17 – International Justice Day – is a useful time to highlight the importance of tackling the funding of atrocity perpetrators. One way to do so is to connect the prosecution of mass atrocities with the lucrative, transnational crimes that fuel them.

It is hard, if not impossible, to think of a conflict since the end of World War II where mass atrocities were perpetrated but in which transnational organised crimes played no role. The commission of transnational crimes, such as human and drug trafficking, money laundering, the illicit trade of oil, ivory and antiquities, and so on, has contributed mightily to filling the coffers of war criminals, terrorists, and genocidaires.

Consider some examples. The notorious Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), a rebel group which operates in swaths of Central Africa, has committed a litany of war crimes and crimes against humanity since its war with the government of Uganda erupted in the mid-1980s. In recent years, the LRA has been able to survive and continue its abduction of children to fight in its ranks because of its illegal trafficking of ivory through Sudan.

In Syria and Iraq, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) has been accused of every international crime on the books, including the attempted genocide of the Yazidi population. ISIL’s economy depended on transnational organised crimes, including the illicit sale of oil through Turkey and on to international markets. While its destruction of culturally protected sites received significant media attention, ISIL also preserved some antiquities in order to sell them, illegally, on black markets. Such transnational crimes permitted ISIL to survive – and terrorise civilians – for as long as it did.

On rare occasions, the link between illicit and lucrative crimes and mass atrocities has received attention from courts. In 2012, former Liberian President Charles Taylor was convicted and sentenced to 50 years in jail for aiding and abetting war crimes and crimes against humanity in Sierra Leone. Central to his conviction was Taylor’s involvement in the trade of “conflict diamonds” in order to fund the rebel groups that terrorised Sierra Leonean civilians.

More recently, the Kosovo Specialist Chambers and Specialist Prosecutor’s Office was established, with many hoping it will shed new light on whether the Kosovo Liberation Army engaged in human organ trafficking following its war and alleged counter-ethnic cleansing campaign against Serbia in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

All of these examples illustrate that the very same perpetrators who commit mass atrocities are also and simultaneously involved in the commission of money-making transnational organised crimes. Given how complex and difficult it is to effectuate meaningful accountability for mass atrocities, as well as the glacial pace of international criminal justice, it is high time to consider placing a greater emphasis on investigating perpetrators of international crimes for their involvement in illicit trade networks.

More can and should be done to destabilise the funding of perpetrators of mass atrocities. This would require a concerted effort on the part of state institutions as well as international organisations, like the International Criminal Court (ICC), to link the investigation of transnational organised crimes and international crimes. There is some progress on this front, with countries like Uganda establishing special divisions capable of investigating both crime sets. Others have promised to do the same. The former ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda raised the spectre of investigating human trafficking in Libya as a possible crime against humanity, although there is no evidence of concrete action on the matter to date.

One promising route would be to ensure that investigators examining mass atrocities are better equipped to collect evidence of transnational organised crimes. Where they are unable to use that evidence to build their own cases, they should share it with states and institutions who are able to do so and who can thus disrupt illicit networks. States should likewise explore the possibility of setting up a permanent international tribunal with the specific mandate of tackling transnational organised crimes, perhaps in conjunction with efforts to create an international anti-corruption court.

Every year, transnational organised crime generates hundreds of billions of dollars. But it is not just costly in dollars and cents. It costs human lives. Tackling such illicit crime could thus help protect civilians from violence and atrocity. It has done so before.

Few gangsters were as notorious in the early 20th century as Al Capone. Widely believed to have been responsible for numerous murders and violent crimes, Capone was ultimately convicted for tax evasion. Incarcerating “Scarface” for a crime he could more easily be prosecuted for meant that he was off the streets and no longer a direct danger to society. In other words, putting Capone behind bars for tax evasion deterred his ability to commit violent crimes in the future.

That is likewise the promise of linking the investigation and prosecution of mass atrocities with transnational organised crimes. Disrupting illicit trade networks and prosecuting perpetrators of transnational crimes would neuter the ability of genocidal regimes, terrorist organisations and rebel groups to fund their violence, thereby deterring atrocities.

Follow the money and perhaps the perpetrators of atrocities around the world will meet their match.

About Mark Kersten

Mark Kersten is a consultant at the Wayamo Foundation, a Senior Researcher at the Munk School of Global Affairs, and a law student at McGill University Law School. He is also author of the book, 'Justice in Conflict - The Effects of the International Criminal Court's Interventions on Ending Wars and Building Peace' (Oxford University Press, 2016).
This entry was posted in International Criminal Court (ICC), International Criminal Justice, ISIS, Islamic State, Kosovo, Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), Kosovo Specialist Chambers, Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), northern Uganda, Sierra Leone, Transnational Organized Crime. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to International Justice Day 2021: To Stop Mass Atrocities, Address How They’re Funded

  1. Afghanistan is a state-party to the Rome Statute since 2003. Office of the ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan, is responsible for examining situations under the jurisdiction of the Court where genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and aggression appear to have been committed etc.

    OHCHR : civilian casualties continued to mount and reports of violations that may amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity continued to emerge.

    “We know that urban warfare results in scores of civilians being killed. We have seen it before, too many times. In Afghanistan, since 9 July in four cities alone – Lashkar Gah, Kandahar, Herat and Kunduz – at least 183 civilians have been killed…” injured, including children.

  2. Hakimi Abdul Jabar says:

    Referring to the Headline : Stopping Mass Atrocities and How They’re Funded : such initiatives must certainly need some form and new avenues to address atrocity crimes financing/mass atrocities financing (ACF/MAF).

    There must be National Obligations to counter atrocity crimes financing but unfortunately, such obligations are not set out in any existing International Framework unlike that which counters terrorism financing. With the intensification of the threats of atrocity crimes by perpetrators over the recent years and the concurrent evolution of atrocity crimes financing typologies, the UN Security Council has to adopted binding resolutions under Chapter VII, to address new avenues of atrocity crimes financing, including by targeting the nexus between non-state actors, state actors and organized groups and individuals and tackling any form of fundraising.

    In Resolution 2462 (2019), the Security Council expressed concern at the flow of funds to terrorists and the need to suppress all forms of terrorist financing. Hence, the UNSC can take a leaf from UNSCR 2462/2019 and address the flow of funds to participants, financiers, supporters etc, of ACF/MAF.

    At the same time, by reference to terrorism :

    Thomas Joscelyn has written a brilliant piece.

    I’m referring to these particular paragraphs :
    There is no explicit mention of al Qaeda in “Victorious Force 3.”
    “Afghans were not involved in these attacks,” the narrator says. While true, it is also meaningless. America invaded Afghanistan in 2001 because al Qaeda’s headquarters was located there, all 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were trained in the country, and Mullah Omar refused to turn over bin Laden or any other al Qaeda leader.

    I’m looking from another angle. Let’s say 9/11 had (some) state(s)-support as stated in the depositions that form part of US families’ long-running case – that support was coordinated by a diplomat in the Saudi embassy in Washington etc :

    At its peak, formal diplomatic recognition of the Taliban’s government was acknowledged by three nations: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. It is believed that the predominantly Pashtun movement first appeared in religious seminaries – mostly paid for by money from Saudi Arabia – which preached a hardline form of Sunni Islam. Pakistan was also one of only three countries, along with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which recognised the Taliban when they were in power in Afghanistan. It was also the last country to break diplomatic ties with the group.

    9/11 known terrorists-hijackers by nationality were : 15 Saudis, 2 Emiratis, 1 Lebanese & 1 Egyptian.

    The principal architect of the 9/11 attacks named in the 9/11 Commission Report – Khalid Sheikh Mohammed/Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is a Pakistani by nationality.

    Hence, the 3 nation-states that recognized the 1st Taliban Narcotics-Terrorism Cartel Regime in Afghanistan in the 1990s are mostly represented by nationality : 15 Saudi terrorists-hijackers, 2 Emiratis and 1 Pakistani principal architect – KSM.

    And it all boils down to this passage Thomas Joscelyn had written :
    … al Qaeda’s headquarters was located there, all 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were trained in the country, and Mullah Omar refused to turn over bin Laden or any other al Qaeda leader.

    It becomes clear as the Sun!

  3. Every International Crime Is Punishable under International Conventions & Customary International Law. Cassese had articulated this in various pronouncements in crimes tribunals & his books. Impunity will be normalized when perpetrators get scott-free!

    … genocide against Christians

  4. I must digress. Climate Change too poses an unprecedented threat to Humanity.

    ‘Ohana Aloha & UNCLOS

    Equity, fairness and justice are key legal principles underpinning UNCLOS.

    The recognition that States-Parties shall fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed under the Convention and shall exercise the rights, jurisdiction and freedoms recognized in the Convention in a manner which would not constitute an abuse of right also applies to our Polynesian, Melanesian & micro-island-states in the Family of Nations.

    The International Community as State-Parties acting in accordance with UNCLOS must take measures against sea-level rise and climate change towards the prrservation of lives & properties of our Polynesian, Micronesian, Melanesian etc. siblings as entrenched under Art. 300.

    Our Family is At Stake! Justice Is In Conflict!

    Global Collective Action Must Be Taken!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s