ECHR vs. ICC

Attribute	ECHR	ICC
Established	1950	2002
Focus	Human rights	International criminal law
Members	47 European countries	123 countries
Court	European Court of Human Rights	International Criminal Court
Jurisdiction	Europe	Worldwide

Introduction

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) are two prominent international judicial bodies that play crucial roles in upholding human rights and international justice. While both institutions have similar goals, they operate in different contexts and have distinct attributes that set them apart. In this article, we will compare the attributes of ECHR and ICC to gain a better understanding of their functions and impact.

Mandate and Jurisdiction

The ECHR is a regional human rights court established by the European Convention on Human Rights. It has jurisdiction over the 47 member states of the Council of Europe and is responsible for interpreting and enforcing the Convention. On the other hand, the ICC is a permanent international court that prosecutes individuals for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression. The ICC's jurisdiction extends to individuals from states that have ratified the Rome Statute, regardless of their nationality.

Composition and Structure

The ECHR is composed of one judge from each member state of the Council of Europe, elected by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. The Court also has a number of ad hoc judges who can be called upon to sit on cases. In contrast, the ICC has 18 judges who are elected by the Assembly of States Parties for a term of nine years. The ICC also has a Prosecutor who is responsible for investigating and prosecuting cases before the Court.

Legal Framework and Procedures

The ECHR operates under the European Convention on Human Rights, which sets out the rights and freedoms that the Court is tasked with protecting. Individuals can bring cases before the ECHR if they believe their rights under the Convention have been violated. The ICC, on the other hand, operates under the Rome Statute, which defines the crimes within its jurisdiction and the procedures for investigating and prosecuting those crimes. The ICC Prosecutor initiates investigations based on referrals from states or the United Nations Security Council.

Enforcement and Compliance

Decisions of the ECHR are binding on the states that are parties to the European Convention on Human Rights. States are required to implement the Court's judgments and take measures to remedy any violations of the Convention. The ICC, on the other hand, does not have its own enforcement mechanism. It relies on states to cooperate with its investigations and prosecutions and to execute its arrest warrants. The ICC can refer non-compliance by states to the Assembly of States Parties or the United Nations Security Council.

Impact and Effectiveness

The ECHR has had a significant impact on human rights protection in Europe. Its judgments have led to legislative and policy changes in member states and have set important precedents in areas such as freedom of expression, privacy, and non-discrimination. The ICC, on the other hand, has faced challenges in achieving its mandate due to limited resources, political pressure, and non-cooperation by states. However, the Court has made progress in holding individuals accountable for serious international crimes.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the ECHR and ICC are two important international judicial bodies that play distinct but complementary roles in upholding human rights and international justice. While the ECHR focuses on interpreting and enforcing human rights standards in Europe, the ICC prosecutes individuals for the most serious international crimes. Both institutions face challenges in achieving their mandates, but they continue to make valuable contributions to the protection of human rights and the promotion of international justice.