Reviewing Spencer’s article, A Complementarity Conundrum: International Criminal Enforcement in the Mexican Drug War
Thomas Spencer’s article, A Complementarity Conundrum: International Criminal Enforcement in the Mexican Drug War, looks into whether drug-related violence is admissible for trial by the International Criminal Court (ICC). Spencer develops a hypothetical but probable prosecution of Heriberto Lazcano, a Mexican drug lord leading the Los Zetas cartel. Lazcano’s is linked to the Tamaulipas Massacre, which led to the death of over eighty migrants trying to cross the Mexican border into the United States. Such an act which was carried out domestically within Mexican borders could be considered an ordinary crime; hence Lazcano should face trial under the national judicial system. On the other hand, the massacre bears elements of a crime against humanity of extermination, which could make Lazcano’s case admissible in the international court. Spencer breaks down the case, assuming the cartel is charged with the crime, and points out various aspects regarding the ICC and Mexico’s Judicial system that show if Lazcano’s trial is admissible or not.
The article is relevant as it addresses ICC’s limits in interfering with local judicial systems and the conditions that the international court’s pre-trial chamber considers in deciding to prosecute an individual for crimes against humanity. Additionally, the author points out concerns surrounding the local justice system that overlap with ICC’s policies in prosecuting international crimes.
Spencer uses an empirical research method to investigate the topic. He reviews other literature as well as previous court cases to develop the reading. He also does a policy analysis of both the ICC and Mexico’s judicial system to analyze Lazcano’s hypothetical trial. One of the previous court cases that the author references in the article is the Stakic judgment in which the Appeals Chamber for the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) passed that there is no specific number that defines mass killing under customary international law (Spencer). The author also takes readers through the elements required for an act to be considered a crime against humanity of extermination by the ICC.
The article presents various arguments that are fundamental to Lazcano’s hypothetical trial. One is that if the ICC holds Mexico’s courts eligible to prosecute Lazcano, the court has no option but to respect their rights of prosecuting crimes that take place in the sovereign state. On the other hand, such an action could mean that the atrocity is viewed as an ordinary crime that trivializes its nature, propelling such impunities. Additionally, the author offers a detailed definition of what a crime against humanity of extermination is according to ICC’s statute. The crime is defined as “an act of extermination committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack” (Spencer). Through the definition, the article analyzes each element that constitutes a humanity crime that ICC must prove during the trial of an individual charged for such crimes.
The article concludes that Mexico’s judicial system is capable of handling Lazcano’s trial, and the state’s courts are the rightful platform to prosecute the cartel leader. The ICC could only step in by starting an inquiry that looks into the admissibility of such a case that bears elements of an ordinary crime. The inquiry should focus on the local judgment passed, whether it appropriately mirrors international standards of the atrocity in question.
Works Cited
Spencer, Thomas. “A Complementarity Conundrum: International Criminal Enforcement in the Mexican Drug War.” Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law (n.d.): 599-636.