Accountability and Transparency: History

Ancient Athens and the Roman Republic

Athenian democracy from the sixth to fourth centuries BCE established civilian oversight of public services, public funds and the wealth and incomes of elected figures. The assembly of citizens elected officials annually (they included 10 generals, naval architects, treasurers and superintendents of the water supply). In between, they were subject to examination and recall.

More: citizens were put in charge of most public affairs. “To a degree that is amazing to the modern mind, the Athenians kept the management of their public life in the hands of the ordinary citizen,” writes historian Donald Kagan. Citizen participation was required. Auditors, financial controllers of the treasury, city commissioners, judges and jurors were chosen each year by lot. From ensuring that dung was properly disposed outside city walls, to monitoring the weights and measures of goods sold, to deciding matters of contractual dispute in courts, citizens participated in the city-state’s affairs.

“To a degree that is amazing to the modern mind, the Athenians kept the management of their public life in the hands of the ordinary citizen,”

In the Roman Republic from the sixth to first centuries BCE, its different assemblies chose all the officials responsible for public administration. There were twenty quaestors who oversaw collection of taxes and public finances. This was the first of a series of offices that characterized a career of public service. These included aediles, who oversaw public events, praetors, who oversaw courts, and tribunes and consuls, who held sovereign positions in directing Rome’s affairs. All were elected positions.

Both systems of administration and accountability, and particularly Athenian democracy, stood in stark contrast to nearly all other governments in the ancient world, most of which were despotic and marked by arbitrary rule, personal enrichment and self-aggrandizement.

Two Basic Precedents

In England, the Magna Carta, which was signed in 1215 CE, introduced a standard of accountability in governance for modern politics. Among other things, it obliged the monarch, King John, to accept the principle that taxes should not be raised for war without approval. Out of this agreement grew a stable form of constitutional monarchy and, over centuries, a parliament asserted greater and greater powers over public expenditures and governance (see also History in Constitutional Limits).

Another significant modern precedent was set in 1517 when Martin Luther, a doctor of theology at the University of Wittenberg, presented his “Ninety-Five Theses on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences.” Luther challenged the practice of Catholic priests selling indulgences (absolution from eternal punishment) for sins. Selling indulgences was a long-standing practice, approved by Popes, that enriched and empowered both the clergy and the Church proper. In challenging indulgences, Luther claimed the right of believers to demand accountability from temporal religious authority. Pope Pius VI ended the practice of indulgences in 1567, but not before the rise of the Reformation, a schism in Christianity between Catholicism and Protestantism.

These precedents are the basis for two basic principles: that there should not be taxation without representation (used by American colonists to assert their independence) and that officials of any governing authority should not abuse their power to extract unjust payments from citizens or members.

Embedded in the Constitution

With the rise of representative democracy in the United States, accountability and transparency became broader in scope. As an expression of the people's will, government would be more accountable to all of the country's citizens and not just to the wealthy or propertied.

Most importantly, the US Constitution set regular elections. There are federal elections every two years for the entire House of Representatives (to two-year terms) and the Senate (to six-year terms with one-third of the Senate elected in each two-year cycle). The House of Representatives was established initially to have one representative for every 30,000 residents. Since 1913, the number of representatives has been fixed at 435 with the number formally capped by legislation in 1929. The number of persons represented has increased greatly with the country’s total population with one representative on average for around 760,000 voters. (There are three one-district states with less population and four one-district states with higher population. One non-voting delegate each represent the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and four other US territories: American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and Virgin Islands.) 

Every state has two senators each, with now 100 senators for 50 states. Two national officers, the president and vice president, are elected every four years by an Electoral College. Federal elections have taken place without interruption since ratification of the Constitution in 1788. All elected representatives must swear an oath of allegiance to the Constitution

With the rise of representative democracy in the United States, accountability and transparency became broader in scope. As an expression of the people's will, government would be more accountable to all of the country's citizens and not just to the wealthy or propertied.

Addressing prior abuses of monarchies, one provision in the constitution banned gifts (or “emoluments) to any officials under the United States (including all civil servants and military officers). Another prohibited the state’s confiscation of landed property without proper cause or compensation.

The Constitution required transparency to the public. The legislative branch must publish all laws and proceedings (the origin of the Congressional Record). The president must report annually to Congress (the origin of the annual State of the Union address). The executive branch must account for government expenditures (the origin of the Treasury Department’s annual Financial Report). These provisions have been followed since the meeting of the First Congress and inauguration of the first president. 

The Power to Impeach

In the United States, with fixed terms in office, there is no possibility for “votes of confidence” to hold a government accountable in between election terms, as in parliamentary systems. Instead, the House of Representatives was given the power to impeach national officials (equal to an indictment) and the Senate the power to try and either acquit or convict and remove from office.

Since 1789, three of forty-five presidents were impeached. . . . Only twenty members of Congress ─ out of a total of more than 11,500 who have served ─ have ever been expelled. The House of Representative has impeached only one Supreme Court Justice, in 1804, who was acquitted.

This power is for cases of "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors." National officials include the president, vice president and “civil officers” (meaning those approved by the Senate, including Cabinet members, ambassadors and federal judges). While impeachment in the House is by majority vote, conviction in the Senate must be by two-thirds vote. Each chamber of Congress has the power to remove its own members, also by two-thirds vote. The House and Senate also have the power to expel their own members for malfeasance, again by the high bar of two-thirds vote.

These levers of accountability have had limited use. Since 1789, three of forty-five presidents were impeached. All were acquitted and stayed in office. One other president resigned due to an impending impeachment (see below). Only twenty members of Congress ─ out of a total of more than 11,500 who have served ─ have ever been expelled. Seventeen of these were in 1861-62 for supporting rebellion against the United States. The House of Representative has impeached only one Supreme Court Justice, in 1804, who was acquitted, and 15 federal judges, all of whom were convicted by the Senate. 

Until 2024, just one Cabinet officer had been impeached and tried, in 1876, but after he had already resigned (he was acquitted). In 2024, the Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, was impeached by the House of Representatives by a majority of one vote but the proceeding was dismissed without trial by the Senate for lack of basis. Only twenty-one members of Congress ─ out of a total of more than 11,500 who have served ─ have ever been expelled. Seventeen of these (three Representatives and fourteen Senators) were expelled in 1861-62 for supporting rebellion against the United States. The most recent, George Santos, was expelled in December 2023 for fraud and corruption in campaign finances.

The Example of Watergate

The first impeachment of a president was in 1868 over President Andrew Johnson’s defiance of Congress during the Reconstruction period. He was acquitted one vote short of the two-thirds needed to convict. In 1998, Bill Clinton was impeached on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice stemming from investigation of a marital affair. He was acquitted on the first charge by a majority of 55 Senators and on the second charge by 50 Senators.

One case of impeachment resulted in a president’s resignation. This was in relation to the Watergate crisis of 1972-74, considered until recently the most significant example of abuse of power in the United States.

One case of impeachment resulted in a president’s resignation. This was in relation to the Watergate crisis of 1972-74, considered until recently the most significant example of abuse of power in the United States.

The crisis began in 1972 when reporters from The Washington Post connected payments from the re-election campaign of Republican President Richard Nixon to five burglars caught in a break-in at Washington, DC’s Watergate building complex (giving the scandal its name). The burglars were caught planting listening devices at the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee. Subsequent investigations by independent media, a special Senate committee, and a special prosecutor appointed by the Department of Justice revealed a broad conspiracy of Nixon, his staff and his re-election campaign to commit and cover up various crimes to punish political enemies, undermine opposition to his re-election in 1972, and thus subvert the democratic process.

The Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives held hearings in 1974 and recommended impeachment on three charges: obstruction of justice, abuse of power and contempt of Congress. A unanimous Supreme Court decision forced the president to release secret tape recordings that revealed Nixon's complicity in both the cover-up and other crimes. Mounting public and political pressure convinced Nixon to resign that August before facing a full impeachment vote and likely conviction in a Senate trial. In total, forty-eight staff and associates were convicted of crimes, but Nixon himself never faced criminal charges. He was quickly pardoned by his successor, President Gerald R. Ford.

The public investigation of Nixon and his resignation were seen both domestically and internationally as an affirmation of American democracy. Nixon’s pardon, however, set a precedent for not holding all citizens to the rule of law

Constitutional limits, congressional oversight, the rule of law, public opinion and the free press acted to hold a president accountable in a serious case of abuse of power. Notably, the free press had been strengthened in its role by two recent decisions of the Supreme Court: New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) and The Pentagon Papers Case (1971). These established protection for the media's rights to publish information about officials, to obtain information from government sources and to print materials that the government kept secret from the public (see also Freedom of Expression).

The public investigation of Nixon and his resignation, along with convictions of top staff, were seen both domestically and internationally as an affirmation of American democracy. Nixon’s pardon, however, set a precedent for not holding all citizens to the rule of law (see below).

Watergate and Church-Pike Reforms

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), passed in 1966, had given citizens and the press the right to request information from the executive branch, making government more open to public view. The Watergate crisis in 1972-74 and two related Congressional investigations of the nation’s intelligence agencies in 1975-76 (the Church and Pike Committees) showed the need for additional accountability and transparency laws.

The Watergate crisis in 1972-74 and two related Congressional investigations of the nation’s intelligence agencies in 1975-76 showed the need for additional accountability and transparency laws.

The Watergate scandal had revealed Nixon’s use of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency in committing crimes. As a result, two Congressional Committees were formed in 1975-76 to investigate more fully the spying on American citizens and other illegal actions by the FBI and CIA. They were known informally as the Church and Pike Committees for their respective Senate and House chairmen. This led Congress to pass the Foreign Service Intelligence Act (1978), which limited monitoring of American citizens except by a special court order based on proper cause. The Act also established special oversight committees in the House and the Senate for the nation’s intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

The Ethics in Government Act (also passed in 1978) establishes standards of honest behavior by public officials, such as requiring disclosure of income and assets by public officials and limiting gifts (thus enforcing the Emoluments Clause in the Constitution). Another 1978 law established Inspector General offices in Cabinet agencies to investigate complaints of improper behavior and to supervise government activities and spending. The Civil Service Reform Act includes protections for whistleblowers of federal employees; another law protects whistleblowers who are government contractors.

Recent Challenges

Among democracies, the United States has seen among the most serious challenges to accountability and transparency principles in recent times.

The 2008-2009 financial crisis, which led to the Great Recession and massive housing foreclosures, exposed illegal predatory practices by lending institutions. Large government bail-outs of major banks were required. Congress passed legislation (the Dodd-Frank Act) and established a new agency (the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) to prevent a repeat of such practices. But no corporate official was held criminally responsible for actions that put the entire financial system at risk and the world in recession.

As a result [of the Citizens’ United decision], there are few limits on spending to affect elections, laws and public decisions by private corporations, organizations and individuals. Among major democracies, the United States is an outlier.

A second challenge involves the Supreme Court’s 2011 Citizens’ United decision, which struck down provisions of an election finance law that limited outside spending in politics (the McCain-Feingold Act). As a result, there are few limits on spending to affect elections, laws and public decisions by private corporations, organizations and individuals. Among major democracies, the United States is an outlier. The lack of spending limits in elections or lobbying activities has given rise to serious questions about accountability and transparency in all three branches of government (see also Free Elections). Recently, exposure of unreported payments to Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito by billionaire political donors and a law firm having business before the Court raised concerns over the Court’s lack of enforceable ethical guidelines (see also United State County Study).

A President Without Precedent

The presidency of Donald J. Trump gave rise to the most serious abuses of power in US history ─ surpassing the  Watergate scandal.

Among other things, a Special Counsel of the US Department of Justice carried out a two-year investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election and its relation to the Trump campaign. It led to six convictions of top campaign staff on various charges as well as to indictments of 35 Russian individuals and entities for election interference. The Report of Special Counsel Robert Mueller concluded that the campaign did not collude with the Russian government but had “solicited, welcomed and used” Russia’s assistance in the election (see link in Resources). The Report also described twelve efforts by Trump to obstruct the investigation as president. No actions were taken by Congress or the Department of Justice to hold Trump accountable. He subsequently pardoned all but one of the campaign officials who were convicted or pled guilty.

Separately, Trump was impeached two times by Congress ─ unprecedented in US history both in number and the scope of charges.

Separately, the House of Representatives brought impeachment charges against Trump two times ─ unprecedented in US history both in number and the scope of charges.

In the first case, Trump was charged with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress for attempting to manipulate the 2020 presidential election process. Specifically, he was charged with illegally withholding military aid allocated by Congress for Ukraine, an ally and a country at war with Russia, in order to extort its president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Trump pressured Zelenskyy to publicly announce false corruption investigations of Trump’s main political opponent, Democrat Joseph R. Biden. Zelenskyy refused at first but nearly succumbed to the demand when the scheme became public due to a whistleblower. 

In the second case, the House of Representatives voted to impeach Trump for “incitement of insurrection” on January 6, 2021 in order to stop the peaceful transfer of power after losing his re-election bid to Biden. A mob attack on the Capitol that Trump called for that day at a demonstration had followed numerous actions over a two-month period to conspire to keep office extra-constitutionally (see also “A Constant Test” in Consent of the Governed).

The Senate acquitted Trump in both impeachment trials. In the second trial, a majority of Senators, 57-43 voted for conviction but still ten votes short of the two-thirds requirement. Under the Constitution, a conviction would have barred Trump from holding any future office. The acquittals allowed him to run for the presidency again. Trump won the Republican Party nomination in its 2024 primaries even though criminal charges were brought in one federal indictment and one state indictment for attempting to overthrow the 2020 election (see below). 

Basic Weaknesses in Accountability

Despite the example of Richard Nixon in the Watergate scandal (see above), the presidency of Donald Trump shows basic weaknesses in the US system of accountability in confronting abuses of power compared to other major democracies. These weaknesses include the unwillingness of elected leaders to impeach and convict a sitting president from the same party; the president’s unchecked pardon power to exonerate crimes committed at his behest; the Constitutional allowance to run for and win the nation’s highest office while under indictment or convicted of crimes; the ability to delay judicial proceedings; and the partisan control of courts that have effectively granted immunity for criminal acts of a president while in office. 

There was an 18-month investigation, including 11 public hearings, related to the January 6 attack on the Capitol by a special committee of the House of Representatives. It found that Trump’s actions on and before that day constituted “a multipart plan to overturn the results” of the 2020 presidential election. The report stated this was the first time in the history of the United States a president had abused his powers to remain in office. The January 6 Committee made a formal referral to the Department of Justice recommending criminal indictments for contempt of Congress, obstruction of justice and incitement to insurrection. (See Resources for a link to the House Select Committee Report on the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol.)

Despite the example of Richard Nixon in the Watergate scandal, the presidency of Donald Trump shows basic weaknesses in the US system of accountability in confronting abuses of power compared to other major democracies.

Donald Trump subsequently was indicted on criminal charges in four cases — one local, one state and two federal cases — again a first in US history. 

Unrelated to the January 6 events, the Manhattan District Attorney indicted Donald Trump in March 2023, on 34 state felony charges related to hush-money payments to hide a sex scandal from the public prior to the 2016 election. Then, a special counsel appointed by the Department of Justice in November 2022, Jack Smith, indicted Trump in June and August 2023 on a total of 37 federal charges of obstruction of justice and espionage for retaining classified documents after leaving office. This indictment was dismissed in July 2024 by a Trump-appointed District Judge on grounds that appointments of Special Counsels by the Department of Justice are unconstitutional. However, numerous judicial precedents have upheld the practice, including by the Supreme Court. The case is being considered on appeal by the Special Counsel to appellate court.

Also in August 2023, the Special Counsel indicted Trump on four charges for “criminal efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and maintain power.” The charges included conspiracy to defraud the United States and to deny US citizens of their rights (see Resources for a link to the indictment). In the same month, the Fulton County District Attorney in Georgia indicted Donald Trump and 18 others on racketeering charges specifically for trying to overturn the 2020 presidential vote in that state. (Four other states indicted Republican officials and Trump’s lawyers, but not Trump, for their roles in attempting to submit false electors to Congress and thus corrupt the counting of certified Electoral College votes in the 2020 election.)

The former president brought a claim of “total immunity” for actions in office, even if they “crossed the line.” District and appellate courts both rejected the claim, in both cases asserting that the US Constitution does not place anyone “above the law.” After delaying consideration, the US Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments on the claim. Finally, in July 2024, the court ruled by a 6-3 majority that presidents have absolute or presumed immunity for their actions even at “the outer perimeter” of their official duties. The ruling effectively places a president above the law. The case brought by the Special Counsel must now be restricted to private acts. The prolonged delays in the appeals process and the effect of the Supreme Court decision made it impossible for either the federal or state case to be heard prior to the 2024 presidential election.

Suits were brought in several state courts invoking an additional constitutional limit ─ Section 3 of the 14th Amendment barring anyone from running or holding office who has engaged in insurrection or aided others engaged in insurrection. In one case, an evidentiary hearing in a Colorado state court found that Donald Trump had engaged in insurrection and barred him from appearing on that state’s ballot for president. The judgement was upheld by the Colorado Supreme Court. On appeal, the US Supreme Court also reversed this judgement. Notwithstanding the Colorado court’s finding of fact, the Supreme Court ruled that no state could invoke Section 3 of the 14th Amendment absent specific implementation by Congress. It ordered that Trump be on all state ballots. Leading constitutional scholars and historians found the Supreme Court’s decision contrary to both precedent and Congressional intent (see articles by Michael Luttig and Lawrence Tribe in Resources).

State courts proved more effective in holding Trump somewhat accountable. The case of the Manhattan District Attorney was heard in in the spring of 2024. A 12-person jury found Trump guilty on all 34 felony counts of disguising election expenses as business payments in the hush-money trial (see Resources for an article in The Shanker Blog on civic lessons for teaching students in the case). Another state court found the Trump Organization guilty of business fraud; it was fined $452 million in a civil judgement. Separately, in a civil trial, a jury found that Trump had committed sexual assault and was liable for $84 million for defamation of E. Jean Carrol for asserting she had lied about the assault. None of these judgements have been acted on due to appeals. The Manhattan district judge postponed sentencing on the 34 felony convictions until after the presidential election in November. No criminal or civil judgement precluded Trump’s 2024 Republican nomination for president.

Beyond the United States

The above sections focused on strengths and weaknesses in holding public officials accountable in the United States. Most democracies ─ whether presidential, parliamentary or mixed systems ─ observe basic principles of transparency and accountability described in Essential Principles. These include: free elections; separation of powers; protections for media; anti-corruption statutes; sunshine laws; legislative oversight; auditing agencies; civic watchdog organizations; among others. All have been used to hold even the highest elected leaders to account.

Now, accountability and transparency laws are basic qualifications for membership in both the Council of Europe and the European Union.

While such mechanisms were not robust in the early development of modern democracies, Western European countries adopted strong domestic legislation for accountability and transparency after the cataclysm of World War II. Now, accountability and transparency laws are basic qualifications for membership in both the Council of Europe and the European Union.

These standards go beyond Europe. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, an inter-governmental organization of 38 democracies with free market economies, also adopted accountability standards and proposes legislation in relation to corporations, nonprofit organizations and trade unions. The United Kingdom’s comprehensive freedom of information legislation for the public sector is seen as a model (see Resources).

Recent examples of leaders in European countries being held to account due to media exposés, criminal investigation and government oversight include: 

• an Italian prime minister (Silvio Berlusconi) forced to resign and subsequently convicted of tax fraud and other charges; 
• a British prime minister (Boris Johnson) forced to resign for violating Covid pandemic restrictions he had imposed; 
• the Netherlands government being forced to resign due to its withholding of public assistance to eligible immigrants and citizens (see Current Issues in Country Study);  
• two recent presidents of France (Jacques Chirac and Nikolas Sarkozy) convicted of violating bribery and election laws, respectively (see Current Issues in Country Study). 

In the most analogous case to the presidency of Donald Trump, former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro has been barred from running for public office until 2030 and is under investigation by the country’s Supreme Court for efforts to remain in power anti-constitutionally after losing the October 2022 election. He has also been charged with accepting foreign bribes (see also A Constant Test in Consent of the Governed).

These cases (and earlier ones) show that most established democracies have ongoing challenges of corruption and abuse of power, but also that many have successfully held leaders accountable.
 

Important Factors in World Events

Corruption and the lack of accountability for abuses of power are often key factors in world-changing events. One example is the Philippines in 1986 (see Country Study in this section). "People Power" was the term used to describe the hundreds of thousands of protestors who forced their longtime ruler, Ferdinand Marcos, to resign over rampant corruption, abuse of power and an attempt to steal an election.

More recently, corruption and attempts to manipulate elections were significant issues in recent elections in Malaysia and Guatemala (see Country Studies) as well as in successful popular uprisings against authoritarian governments in Serbia (2000), Georgia (in 2003) and Ukraine (in both 2004 and 2013-14). In these countries and others, the public's disgust at corruption and abuse of power was a factor for mobilizing the citizenry to demand democratic change.

Corruption and the lack of accountability for abuses of power are often key factors in world-changing events.

The achievement of accountability and transparency in newer democracies is mixed. Many introduced standards of accountability and mechanisms for dealing with corruption and abuse of power. For example, this was an early achievement of Botswana (the Free country in this section) and South Africa (the Free Country in Consent of the Governed). Yet, as seen in their Country Studies, each have recent cases of corruption and abuses of power that challenge their democracies.

Other newer democracies have struggled with overcoming corrupt practices and abuses of power. In some, such as Turkey under the presidency of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, they are becoming entrenched features. These “backsliding” democracies are on trajectories to become full dictatorships, where corruption and abuse of power become systemic.

International Accountability

As noted in Essential Principles, there are few instances in history of accountability for the larger crimes of aggression, war crimes or crimes against humanity, including for slavery and genocide.

Indeed, these terms were not fully adopted as applicable international standards until after World War II with the establishment of the Nuremburg Tribunal and the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. These tribunals held accountable individuals who had carried out the unprecedented violence and killing in World War II, including the crime of the Holocaust, the organized murder of 6 million Jews by the Nazi regime in an attempt to exterminate European Jewry (see also Essential Principles).

[T]here are few instances in history of accountability for the larger crimes of aggression, war crimes or crimes against humanity, including for slavery and genocide.

Nuremburg trial principles and the adoption in 1948 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide codified such crimes in international law and provided that states and individuals must be held accountable for committing them.

Few actions for accountability were taken until the 1990s, when the United Nations established special tribunals for the former Yugoslavia in 1993 and for Rwanda in 1994. In both cases, leading perpetrators were arrested and convicted for crimes of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in these countries. (In the case of Serbia, the most leading figure, Slobodan Milosevic, died before his trial was completed and no finding was made.) Additional tribunals were established for Sierra Leone, Lebanon, Cambodia and East Timor.

These Special Tribunals were an impetus for establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002. (One of the lead prosecutors in the Nuremburg Trials, Ben Ferencz, had lobbied for its creation since the late 1950s. See link in Resources.) There was now a single institution to investigate and prosecute these and other violations of international law in member countries. There are currently 123 member signatory states. (The United States is not a signatory.)

Accountability for the Past

Accountability for crimes of past regimes has been difficult to attain when pursued within countries. South Africa established a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to reveal the human rights abuses committed by the apartheid regime. But this resulted in amnesty for perpetrators who revealed their crimes to the public and few cases were pursued of others who hid their crimes. A National Commission for Truth and Reconciliation established in Chile issued a report on human rights crimes of the Augusto Pinochet regime but Pinochet and most other perpetrators of crimes escaped prosecution.

No such commissions were established following the collapse of communist regimes in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. In Poland, former leader General Wojciech Jaruzelski evaded a court proceeding on criminal charges for crimes committed while suppressing the Solidarity movement in the 1980s (see Country Study). Poland and other countries have established museums and other institutions for the examination and study of the crimes of totalitarian regimes.

In Guatemala, two former leaders were prosecuted and convicted for genocide and crimes against humanity for the mass slaughter committed in anti-insurgency campaigns in 1982-83. It was the first time a domestic court held accountable a former leader for such crimes. However, the 2013 convictions were quickly overturned by Guatemala’s Supreme Court under government pressure. In the end, prosecutions for both individuals were unsuccessful (see Country Study).

Accountability for the Present

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has jurisdiction for signatories to the Rome Convention and its cases have focused particularly on Africa, most of whose countries signed the treaty. The first sitting leader to be indicted for genocide by the ICC was Omar al-Bashir of Sudan (see Country Study), but he has yet to be extradited to face trial. 

An urgent case is that of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and genocide and war crimes committed by its armed forces and mercenaries on Ukrainian territory. 

Two ongoing cases of genocide ─ that of the Rohingya in Burma and the Uyghurs in China ─ are outside the ICC’s jurisdiction.

An urgent case is that of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and genocide and war crimes committed by its armed forces and mercenaries on Ukrainian territory. The ICC has asserted jurisdiction with the approval of the Ukrainian government (which is not a member of the ICC but formally accepted its jurisdiction).

In March 2023, the ICC indicted Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova, the Presidential Commissioner for Human Rights, for forcibly abducting thousands of Ukrainian children from war zones and taking them to Russia for permanent residence. This is considered an act aimed at eradicating a nation or culture under the Genocide Convention. Additional cases of war crimes and crimes against humanity are pending ICC investigation. On their own, domestic Ukrainian courts are carrying out investigations and trials of soldiers committing war crimes. (There are 128,498 cases documented as of May 2024. By February 2024, eighty Russian soldiers, fifteen in captivity, had been convicted of war crimes.)

The Rome Convention does not include the crime of aggression within the ICC’s jurisdiction. The EU’s European Commission, however, voted in March 2023 to establish The International Center for the Prosecution of Crimes of Aggression against Ukraine (ICPA). It opened an office in The Hague in July to pursue prosecution for the crime of aggression ─ the first time since the Nuremburg and Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Ukraine continues to call for such a body to be authorized more broadly by the United Nations.