While some recent episodes of genocide and ethnic cleansing have resulted in establishment of specific tribunals, for example the tribunal aimed at war criminals in the Balkans, many such episodes that are continuing today have gone untouched by the hand of international justice. One of the foremost examples of the latter is the genocidal ethnic cleansing unleashed on Kashmiri Pandits, who have been all but wiped out of their ancestral homeland by Pakistani-supported Islamic terrorists.

 The new treaty envisions a permanent court that will treat the most serious crimes of concern to the international community. In the words of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, "The establishment of the Court is still a gift of hope to future generations, and a giant step forward in the march towards universal human rights and the rule of law" (The United Nations web site - http://www.un.org/icc/ ). Aside from referrals by concerned countries, the treaty will empower the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to independently initiate investigations.

 At first glance, the treaty appears to have been tailored for combating atrocities such as those that have been carried out against Kashmiri Pandits since 1990. Article 6 of the statute defines "genocide" as "an act committed with intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, including killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group. Article 7 defines "crimes against humanity" as "acts committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, including murder, deportation or forcible transfer of population, torture, rape and persecution of religious, ethnic or other identifiable groups". Article 8 defines war crimes as those committed as a part of a plan or policy of a large scale commission of crimes including killings, torture, unlawful deportation, taking of hostages, and humiliating and degrading treatment. Article 28 also brings military commanders and superiors who may have known about or encouraged such crimes under the jurisdiction of the Court.

 However, a closer look at the statute’s provisions raises questions about whether Kashmiri Pandits will be able to take their case to the International Criminal Court and get justice. The Court will not be in force unless at least 60 countries ratify it by the end of the year 2000. If the Court is indeed established and impaneled after that date, it will only have jurisdiction with respect to crimes committed after the statute is in force. This means that over a decade of monstrous atrocities against Kashmiri Pandits will not be covered under the statute. Furthermore, the Security Council can effectively delay prosecutions for an indefinite period, if it so desires, under Article 16 of the statute.

 Enforcement of the statute is another aspect that may raise questions of feasibility. Despite the cooperation of several of the warring sides in the Balkans, the war crimes tribunal for Bosnia has had little success in capturing and bringing to justice the harbingers of ethnic cleansing in that region. The statute also provides for reparations to victims and their families, but this again would not be applicable in a retroactive manner for crimes committed before the statute goes into force. Of course money would be meager compensation for a whole community that has been denied its right to live in its ancestral land.

 It is clear from analyzing the treaty provisions that justice for Kashmiri Pandits at the International Criminal Court will be neither immediate nor certain. The only glimmer of hope lies in the future. If the Court does indeed go into force in the next millennium, will it deter would-be genocidal criminals from repeating the mayhem of this century?