The duty of the International Criminal Court in China’s usurpation of Tibetan territory
Author: Tenzin Woeser (National Law University, Delhi)
It seems as if the world has turned a blind eye towards the atrocities, edging on the crime of genocide, that China has been committing against Tibetans since 1959. The event has failed to garner international support for the cause of Tibetans’ identity. Whether it is the rise of China as a significant economic player in the international market and the fear of dire repercussions for speaking against it or has the world lost humanity over political gain? The answer to this question is vague. Despite the lack of international unity, we are looking forward to returning to our homeland with his Holiness, the Dalai Lama. As a law student myself, I see a beam of hope in the international criminal court for bringing justice to the wronged Tibetans.
Many NGOs have been striving to bring human rights issues in Tibet to international institutions’ attention, but such knockings were either never given attention or the door was momentarily ajar and then closed shut citing jurisdictional issues. International Institutions on many occasions have refused to entertain matters mainly because China is not a signatory to the Rome Statute. What is appalling about the whole situation is that the fact of China not being a signatory to the Rome Statute has allowed the International community to ignore the events taking place in Tibet and acts as a free pass for China to continue the commission of abhorrent crimes and inhumane acts against the Tibetans. Is the matter of not being a signatory significant enough to stop the International Criminal Court from doing what it ought to do? Or can we claim Tibet as a member state, eligible to become a member state of the Rome Statute? According to the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, the State as a subject of international law should have 1) Government, 2) a permanent population, 3) the capacity to enter into relations with other states, and 4) a defined territory. The nation of Tibet satisfies all these requirements. I still cannot fathom the fact why the world continues to see Tibetans as stateless people and Tibet as a stateless nation, given that the international community deep down knows Tibet is a country separate from China, having a distinct culture, history, tradition and religion. Then why is the world silent and accepting the tags put on Tibetans and Tibet as stateless people and a stateless nation respectively? This reinforces China’s strength to commit crimes against humanity, especially in Tibet, taking advantage of the world’s ignorance of the status of Tibet in an international forum. Does China being a non-member state of the Rome Statute outweigh a legitimate fight of Tibetans for human rights? Why Tibet is being treated differently? The Question revolves around the power of China and its subsequent consequences. How long is the world going to be ignorant and keep on deviating itself from the responsibility to protect human rights?
The Chinese occupation of Tibet has since resulted in innumerable acts of murder, genocide, unlawful imprisonment and crimes beyond imagination against Tibetans on a large scale. There are more than one million Tibetans under the rule of Communist China. They are treated no less than animals. Their basic rights are denied. For instance, their right to privacy is infringed and every step of theirs is under surveillance. The list of crimes is endless. Those who could not escape from China are betting on Tibetans in exile to fight for their justice and bring the Tibet issue to international attention. And I, just like the others, will be deeply sorry if they come to know we have failed and nobody in the world is willing to raise their voice against China. I personally see hope when I read the news that International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant against Vladimir Putin; my faith in ICC resurrected for holding persons responsible for the commission of the gravest crimes against humanity in Tibet. But if ICC remains silent in this regard, the very objectives and purposes of the ICC to prevent international crime are defeated.
