Making the Local Global

Abstract When the International Criminal Court (ICC) was created 27 years ago, it was meant to become a court with global reach responsible for investigating, prosecuting, trying and punishing individuals accused of international crimes. However, a variety of factors have reduced the capacity of the ICC and caused those working to impose accountability for international crimes to look elsewhere for solutions. The ICC may need to assess whether it can reorient its trial processes so that it remains relevant in this changing legal landscape. One way this might be achieved is by shifting trials away from the Court’s seat in The Hague and holding them closer to the victims and communities affected by the accused’s alleged criminality. Doing so could help change perceptions of the ICC and grant it the legitimacy it craves. This article assesses the legality, potential effectiveness, and practicality of such a change. It does this through an examination of the Bazaramba and Massaquoi cases, two universal jurisdiction trials held in Finnish domestic courts. These trials are particularly relevant because in both cases the presiding courts relocated the trial to parts of Africa in or near the countries in which the crimes under consideration took place. As a result, they offer insight into the potential impact locally held trials for international crimes can have on victims and witnesses. Through this lens, the article considers whether a practical basis exists for the localization of ICC trials through a thorough examination of the Rome Statute’s relevant provisions. Next, it explores whether relocating trials can improve the standing of the court, both in terms of the justice it delivers and how its activities are perceived. Finally, the article will consider some of the practical challenges faced by the Finnish courts when holding proceedings in Africa, and what the ICC might learn from them.