Crimes against humanity and an obtuse Indian stance

Why in the News?

India’s stance on a ‘crimes against humanity’ treaty reflects its longstanding reservations about the Rome Statute and the International Criminal Court.

What is India’s stance on the proposed Crimes Against Humanity treaty?

• Non-Party to the Rome Statute: India is not a signatory to the Rome Statute and has consistently expressed objections to the ICC’s jurisdiction, particularly regarding the powers of the ICC prosecutor and the role of the UN Security Council in prosecuting international crimes. India argues that it should be able to address such issues through its national legal system rather than through international mechanisms.
• Call for In-Depth Study: For 5 years, India has advocated for a comprehensive examination of the need for a dedicated CAH treaty. This reflects its belief that existing frameworks may not adequately address the complexities of CAH.
• Concerns Over Duplication: India is wary that a new CAH treaty could overlap with existing laws under the Rome Statute, potentially complicating accountability measures rather than clarifying them.

How does India’s legal framework address crimes against humanity? Lack of Domestic Legislation: Currently, India does not have specific domestic laws prohibiting crimes against humanity. The absence of such legislation was highlighted by Justice S. Muralidhar of the Delhi High Court, who noted that neither CAH nor genocide is included in India’s criminal law. This gap indicates a need for legislative action to align with international standards. Emphasis on National Jurisdiction: India maintains that national courts are more suitable for addressing CAH and other international crimes, emphasising its preference for national over international jurisdiction in these matters. Why should India have proper legislation related to Crime against humanity? Inadequate Domestic Legislation: Despite ratifying the Genocide Convention, India lacks domestic laws to enforce its provisions, creating a gap in prosecuting crimes like genocide and CAH. International Accountability: Enacting CAH laws would align India’s legal framework with international standards, fulfilling commitments and enhancing global cooperation on prosecuting international crimes. Justice for Mass Atrocities: India’s history of communal violence underscores the need for CAH laws to ensure justice, accountability, and deterrence against future atrocities while safeguarding human rights. Leadership in Human Rights: By adopting CAH laws, India could address global issues like terrorism, advocate for accountability, and position itself as a leader in promoting justice and human dignity. Empowering National Courts: CAH laws would strengthen Indian courts’ ability to handle serious human rights violations, reinforcing the country’s preference for national jurisdiction over international mechanisms.

What are India’s specific concerns regarding the definitions and scope of crimes against humanity?

• Definition of Crimes: India has raised objections to certain definitions within the proposed treaty. It argues against including “enforced disappearance” as a CAH while advocating for “terrorism” to be recognised as such. This reflects India’s broader security concerns and its focus on acts it deems more relevant to its national context.
• Scope of Application: India contends that crimes committed only during armed conflicts should be classified as CAH, opposing any broader interpretation that includes peacetime offences. This position underscores India’s strategic interests and its approach to defining accountability in terms of state actions during conflicts rather than in peacetime contexts.

Way forward: 

• Enact Comprehensive Domestic Legislation: India should introduce laws addressing crimes against humanity and other international crimes, aligning with global standards while addressing domestic concerns like terrorism and communal violence.
• Advocate for Inclusive Global Frameworks: India can engage constructively in international negotiations on the CAH treaty, pushing for definitions and provisions that address its concerns, such as including terrorism, while leveraging its stance to lead global efforts in promoting accountability and human rights.

Mains PYQ:

Q What do each of the following quotations mean to you? “Condemn none: if you can stretch out a helping hand, do so. If not, fold your hands, bless your brothers, and let them go their own way.” – Swami Vivekanand (UPSC IAS/2020)