The idea that “grand corruption” by world leaders and powerful individuals able to shield themselves from domestic accountability should be considered a crime against humanity has percolated for years among anti-corruption advocates and international law experts.
in some very significant material ways. the international criminal court is criticised because it s prosecuted exclusively, almost africans. exactly. it goes after the weaker states, yeah. that would not be the case with the international anti corruption court. i think the international criminal court is too much criticised. it s done more good than it s given credit for. but africans have been prosecuted exclusively. a, that s where the crimes within the jurisdiction of the international criminal court have largely occurred crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide. grand corruption exists throughout the world. that s one. two, the international criminal court can have any investigation vetoed by the un security council. china vetoes investigations of north korea. mm hm. it is our present intention to create this court outside of the united nations so there wouldn t be this opportunity for the big political powers to protect their friends and allies.
anti corruption court is urgently needed, essentially for three reasons. first, as i could explain, grand corruption. the abuse of public office for private gain by a nation s leaders has devastating consequences that have international impacts. that grand corruption doesn t thrive because of a lack of laws. 181 countries are party to the un convention against corruption. they all have laws making corrupt conduct by their highest officials illegal. but those laws are not enforced in the countries that kleptocrats rule because they control the police, the prosecutors, and the courts. therefore, the international anti corruption court is needed as a court of last resort to enforce those laws, or a uniform counterpart of them, for countries that are unwilling or unable to do so themselves. but, look, there are many dimensions, parties and players involved in corruption. there s political corruption,
or prosecuted a case the way many prosecutors have. the international anti corruption court would be different than the international criminal court in some very significant material ways. the international criminal court is criticised because it s prosecuted exclusively, almost africans. exactly. it goes after the weaker states, yeah. that would not be the case with the international anti corruption court. i think the international criminal court is too much criticised. it s done more good than it s given credit for. but africans have been prosecuted exclusively. a, that s where the crimes within the jurisdiction of the international criminal court have largely occurred crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide. grand corruption exists throughout the world. that s one. two, the international criminal court can have any investigation vetoed by the un security council. china vetoes investigations of north korea.
initiatives international, i and now many others around the world believe the international anti corruption court is urgently needed, essentially for three reasons. first, as i could explain, grand corruption. the abuse of public office for private gain by a nation s leaders has devastating consequences that have international impacts. that grand corruption doesn t thrive because of a lack of laws. 181 countries are party to the un convention against corruption. they all have laws making corrupt conduct by their highest officials illegal. but those laws are not enforced in the countries that kleptocrats rule because they control the police, the prosecutors, and the courts. therefore, the international anti corruption court is needed as a court of last resort to enforce those laws, or a uniform counterpart of them, for countries that are unwilling or unable to do so themselves.