The child abuse scandal has rocked the Catholic church and has triggered a strong response by the church leadership, first and foremost by Pope Benedict XVI. On 13 September 2011, a case was brought against the pope and several other high ranking church officials at the International Criminal Court in The Hague for alleg-edly “enabling” child abuse to go unpunished. It has been claimed that this would amount to crimes against humanity. In this short text it will be shown that there has been no “enabling” on the part of the Holy Father, that there is no basis for a criminal responsibility and that such obviously unfounded claims can actually have serious impacts on the proper functioning of international judicial organs. The con-clusion is reached that the International Criminal Court is the wrong place to reg-ister grievances in this context and that the justice which all victims deserve will not be achieved in this manner. This article is part one in a new series on European and International Human Rights Law.
Table of Contents
1. The Dangers of Political Instrumentalization of International Judicial Organs
1.1 The Case of Pope Benedict XVI
Objectives and Themes
The primary objective of this work is to analyze the legal validity of the complaint brought against Pope Benedict XVI before the International Criminal Court (ICC) regarding child abuse scandals, while examining the broader implications of using international judicial bodies for political agendas.
- Legal critique of the allegation of "crimes against humanity" in the context of church leadership.
- Application of International Criminal Law standards regarding "joint criminal enterprise."
- Evaluation of the risks that unfounded legal claims pose to the functional efficiency of international courts.
- The distinction between legitimate legal grievances and the political instrumentalization of international justice.
Excerpt from the Book
The Dangers of Political Instrumentalization of International Judicial Organs – The Case of Pope Benedict XVI
The complaint equates the alleged “enabl[ing]” of rapes by Catholic priests with ordering rapes in times of war. Not only that the strict church rules against rape can hardly be considered a form of enabling (rape, after all, has always been prohibited by the church), mere enabling does not necessarily trigger criminal responsibility. Rather, International Criminal Law requires – among other things – a joint criminal enterprise, that means, an involvement on the part of the accussed in the actual crime e.g. by having a joint plan in which both the accussed and the actual perpetrator had a part in. The “plan” of a priest who rapes a child is just that, his plan. The church has no interest in this crime happening, far from it! Therefore the superior of a priest who commits such a heinous crime cannot be considered to have shared in the plan of the perpetrator. This in turn means that already the most basic element of responsibility for participation in a joint criminal enterprise does not exist in this case: there is nothing “joint” about the act of the pedeophile perpetrator. It is his act and his act alone and he is in no way supported, let alone “enabled” by his superiors, least of all by the pope who in fact has taken actions on more than one occassion to prevent such crimes from happening.
But not only do the allegations show a lack of understanding of International Criminal Law, they also reveal a deeper problem in that unfounded claims damage the ability of international judicial organs to function property. The International Criminal Court is not a political tool (although one might almost be forgiven if one recalls the treatment of the situation in Darfur) but is tasked with enforcing criminal law in cases in which the state which should do so is unwilling or unable to enforce the law and to bring perpetrators to justice. Neither is the case here. States in which the rapes have occurred are perfectly able and willing to prosecute rapists.
Summary of Chapters
1. The Dangers of Political Instrumentalization of International Judicial Organs: This chapter introduces the context of the complaint filed against the Pope and critiques the misapplication of international criminal law standards.
1.1 The Case of Pope Benedict XVI: This section provides a detailed argument against the notion of "enabling" crimes and highlights the negative impact that politically motivated litigation has on the resources and integrity of international courts.
Keywords
International Criminal Court, Pope Benedict XVI, Catholic Church, child abuse, International Criminal Law, joint criminal enterprise, crimes against humanity, political instrumentalization, judicial integrity, human rights law, criminal responsibility, legal accountability, NGOs, legal abuse, victim justice.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this publication?
The text focuses on the legal and political implications of the complaint filed against Pope Benedict XVI at the International Criminal Court, specifically addressing whether the allegations meet the criteria for "crimes against humanity."
What are the central thematic fields addressed in the analysis?
The analysis covers international criminal law, the organizational responsibility of the church, the misuse of judicial institutions for political purposes, and the resource management challenges faced by international courts.
What is the primary research objective?
The goal is to demonstrate that the complaint is legally unfounded and that the ICC is not the appropriate forum for these grievances, warning against the damage caused by the political instrumentalization of international justice.
Which scientific or legal methods are applied?
The author applies a normative legal analysis, evaluating the definition of "joint criminal enterprise" and the prerequisites for criminal responsibility within the framework of International Criminal Law.
What does the main body of the text cover?
It covers the specific allegations against the Pope, the legal impossibility of "enabling" in this context, and the systematic impact of inadmissible claims on the functionality of international judicial organs like the ICC and ECtHR.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include International Criminal Law, political instrumentalization, judicial integrity, Pope Benedict XVI, and criminal responsibility.
How does the author define the term "joint criminal enterprise" in this context?
The author argues that it requires a "joint plan" or active participation in the crime, noting that the unilateral actions of a pedophile priest cannot be attributed to his superiors as a coordinated effort.
Why does the author consider the ICC an inappropriate venue for this case?
The author argues that the ICC is designed for situations where states are unwilling or unable to prosecute crimes; since the relevant states are capable of handling these cases, the intervention of the ICC is both unnecessary and legally improper.
What concern does the author raise regarding NGOs?
The author notes that the claimants are represented by NGOs with political agendas rather than law firms, suggesting that these groups may be abusing the accessibility of international courts for political leverage.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Rechtsanwalt Stefan Kirchner (Autor:in), 2011, The Dangers of Political Instrumentalization of International Judicial Organs , München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/178608
