II. The Use of Social Media

In order to discuss the various uses and applications of social media, one must first define what the term encompasses. However, the numerous different social network providers, as well as the different uses to which they could be put make a single all-encompassing definition difficult to formulate. In a general sense, social media can be described as “a general set of tools that use the internet to highlight collaboration to make and distribute content.”7 This definition highlights the two most important features of social media, its existence on the internet and its collaborative aspect. However, this definition leaves out one crucial aspect social media of special importance to the ICC, which is the way it allows each user to become an independent publisher of content. Therefore, a more appropriate definition of social media is the “set of web-based broadcast technologies that enable the democratization of content, giving people the ability to emerge from consumers of content to publishers.”8 This definition encompasses the most popular social media sites, including Facebook, Google+, Twitter, and YouTube9 and is necessary to explain the many uses to which these sites can be put by the ICC.

The democratic and online nature of social media make it unique in comparison to traditional media sources. First, social media changes the traditional mode of one-to-many communication that has typified news reporting. As opposed to one news agency reporting a group of consumers, social networks such as Twitter and Facebook have allowed the masses to communicate with the publisher, the masses to communicate with each other, and news organizations to target and respond to specific individual consumers.

Perhaps more importantly, it allows individuals to become content publishers by removing the gatekeeping function of traditional media sources. When an event or crisis takes place, individuals will engage in information gathering.10 Traditionally, major news providers have been the primary source of this information that individuals have relied on. This has largely been the result of technological limitations. Because of the expense, danger, and time necessary report on these events, traditional news sources offered the most timely information, in addition to being perceived as trustworthy.11

Because of this relative monopoly, traditional news providers have served a gatekeeping function. By determining which events and stories would be reported on, these agencies thus determined what information consumers would have access to.12 The technological advances that have manifested themselves as social media have changed this dynamic. Individuals on the ground are now able to upload information to the internet as it occurs in real time. This has resulted in individuals as well as news reporting agencies often relying on the same information about a given situation. The Syrian Civil War exemplifies this, as “user-generated content produced by Syrians and disseminated on social networking sites such as Facebook and content-sharing platforms such as YouTube have been major sources for international media outlets reporting on Syria.”13

Due to these factors, traditional media is no longer the most timely source of information. Traditional providers and the general public alike have come to rely on social media for information. Thus if the ICC wishes to remain visible in the international community and to reach the public, social media is an invaluable and necessary tool.

III. Achieving the ICC’s Outreach Goals Through Social Media

A. Establish an Effective System of Two-Way Communication between the Court and the Public

The court’s first stated outreach goal is to establish an effective system of two-way communication between the court and the public. This goal is paramount for the the success of any outreach campaign. Crucially, it is by definition necessary for achieving any of the other outreach goals of the court. Without a two-way communication system, the court will have no way of addressing the public and communicating its message. It will also be unable to gauge public opinion, and therefore address the most pressing concerns or to determine any generally held misconceptions. As the court itself observes:

While independence, impartiality and fairness are defining attributes of justice, it should not be forgotten that making judicial proceedings public is a central element of a fair trial and therefore necessary to ensuring the quality of justice. Justice must be both done and seen to be done14

Therefore, not only is a system of two-way communication necessary to achieve the court’s outreach goals, it is also central to its overall goals under the Rome Statute.

As a defining feature of social media is two-way communication among potentially large groups, it is ideally-suited for helping the court to achieve this goal. A social media platform like Twitter or Facebook is particularly well-suited. Both of these networking sites allow for broad messages to be posted for each all associated users, while allow allowing the organization to access statements by users. Thus, Facebook and Twitter foster a two-way dialogue.These platforms allow for organizations to communicate directly with users, while instantly reaching a large audience with any messages they put. It’s utility for reaching a large number of individuals and allowing for a dialogue is evidenced by the fact that fully 86% of United States marketing specialists indicate that social media is a crucial tool for reaching consumers and spreading a business’ message.15 Therefore, these platforms could be invaluable resources for the Court.

The Court has already made tentative steps towards using social media sites to foster a dialogue. The Court has a Twitter handle (@IntCrimCourt) which it uses primarily to post updates on its current cases.16 However, it apparently does not allow for other users to post to its feed, or use the forum to explain its policy undertakings. Therefore, by expanding its use of Twitter and by expanding to other social media forums the Court could achieve the two-way dialogue it seeks on a large scale.

B. Respond Effectively to the Public’s Concerns and Expectations about the Court

The Court’s second stated outreach goal to effectively respond to the public’s concerns and expectations about the work of the Court. Addressing these concerns in crucial for the existence of the Court, as it relies on public approval and perceived legitimacy to validate its existence. As the recent threat by the African Union to withdraw from the Rome Statute17 makes clear, without a certain level of public approval, the International Criminal Court could quickly transform from a respected institution to a failed experiment in international justice. As previously observed, “justice must be both done and seen to be done.”18

Social media can be an effective tool in this pursuit, as well. The most important step to accomplish this is to maintain the type of two-way dialogue in the manner discussed above. This will allow the Court to determine the areas of greatest concern to the public and address them accordingly.

Once these issues have been identified, the next step would be for the Court to thoroughly address these issues. This is where the International Criminal Court Forum (upon which this piece is posted) could be particularly useful to the Office of the Prosecutor. The present forum allows for both detailed pieces and responses. thus it would allow the Court to both discuss its policy decisions to the public, while simultaneously fielding comments that would illuminate the public’s expectations and concerns. While the Court has had some involvement in the selection of issues of the present forum, its direct involvement has been minimal. By increasing its participation it could thus achieve its second outreach goal.

C. Clarify Any Misconceptions About the Court and it’s Work

Finally, social media can be extremely useful in achieving the court’s final outreach goal, clarifying any misconceptions about the court and its work. Misconceptions and misinformation are constant challenges the International Criminal Court must battle. As the ICC often targets political leaders, it must often grapple a deliberate campaign of misinformation. As Human Rights Watch observes, “With the Court operating in polarized communities that are in or recovering from conflict, those who are threatened by the Court can be expected to do their utmost to tarnish it.”19 Additionally, the work of the Court is complex and can be confusing, even to those savvy in the field of international law, let alone the general population.20 Therefore, an effective and far-reaching campaign to clarify these misconceptions is necessary to ensure understanding of the work of the Court, and to prevent a loss of legitimacy due to the misinformation campaigns of current or potential indictees.

The instant nature of social media makes it ideally suited for combating misinformation. This is important due to the fact that generally the sooner a misconception is challenged, the easier it is to dispel. This is evidenced by the controversy surrounding Lubanga’s arrest in the Democratic Republic of the Congo:

[T]he absence of a clear voice from the ICC conveying basic information about the court following Lubanga’s arrest led to many damaging rumors about its work. The resulting misunderstanding requires far more corrective outreach than would have been necessary had a more proactive approach been taken at an earlier stage.21

Thus social media platforms such as Twitter or Facebook, with its ability to instantly broadcast a message to large groups could be ideal for maintaining a sustained campaign of corrective information. By making policies accessible and well known beforehand will also make these policies more difficult to distort. In addition to Twitter and Facebook, the Court should also continue to stream its proceedings online, making it more difficult to challenge the legitimacy of trials. By taking these steps, the ICC can utilize social media to impair efforts to misconstrue their actions and clarify its mission.

IV. The Limitations of Social Media

All of this is not to say, however, that social media does not have significant limitations in the context of the work of the International Criminal Court. While the internet is an ubiquitous facet of life in the developed world (a 78.6% penetration rate),22 up to this point all of the cases of the ICC have involved situations in Africa, which has a mere 15.6% internet penetration rate.23 In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the source of more ICC investigations than any other country, it is as low as 1.2%.24 Therefore, while social media can be useful in building international support, and perhaps even in encouraging more widespread ratification of the Rome Statute, its ability to affect the populations of situations countries, at least presently, is severely limited. Thus the Court must be strategic in the way it deploys its social media campaign, targeting those affected populations with access to the internet, while also targeting its message to an international audience.

Additionally, the ICC must acknowledge the fact that public attention is often fleeting. While social media campaigns are often successful in capturing widespread attention in the short term, the claim that this results in any form of sustained interest or social activism is more dubious. This is evidenced by the general response to Kony 2012. While Google searches for the term “Joseph Kony” did spike in the period immediately following the release of the film, within a month they had returned to essentially the same level as before.25 Therefore, the Court should sustain its social media outreach efforts, and attempt to cultivate a base of dedicated followers who will remain engaged in the workings of the court. Creating mailing lists or a Facebook group are ways businesses have approached this problem,26 and the court could emulate these strategies to remain in the public consciousness.

More problematic for the purposes of the ICC is the fact that social media often entails a certain amount of simplification, especially when it attempts to capture the attention of large amounts of people. This is not a recent phenomenon, but has long been understood to be required in some measure to create political engagement.27 The field of international criminal law is a dynamic and developing area of law, and does not easily lend itself to quick summarizations of complex issues. This contrasts with the 140-character limit of any Twitter post, which inhibits an in-depth discussion of an issue. Even longer formats can involve a problematic amount of simplification, however. The prime example of this, again, is Invisible Children’s Kony 2012 short film and accompanying social media campaign. While the film has been phenomenally successful, gaining nearly 100,000,000 YouTube views,28 this has come at the cost of what some have characterized as dangerous oversimplifications of the complexities of the conflict.29 Thus, a reckless social media campaign could have the effect of compounding the very misconceptions the correction of which is one of the Court’s primary outreach goals, as well as empowering those who would seek to further discredit the ICC through misinformation.

This problem is especially difficult to combat, as it is often difficult to capture public attention without some amount of simplification. For example, a more balanced, nuanced film produced by Invisible Children in the wake of the criticism of Kony 2012 has not been nearly as successful, capturing barely 3% of the amount of views of the former production.30 This may indicate that a certain amount of simplicity is necessary to capture the attention of the general population of social media users.

Thus the International Criminal Court will have to strike a balance between making its social media activity accessible to a broader population, while also communicating the messages it wishes to convey fully and in a balanced manner. A possible solution is to use its Twitter account to link to full reports, or publish official summaries of proceedings on its YouTube channel. This would make the information condensed and digestible to a general audience, while making the more complex aspects of the issues and proceedings open and accessible to all who wish to engage them. In this way the court can engage the general population of social media users whiteout compromising its outreach goals.

V. Conclusions

Social media is by no means the ultimate solution to the vast challenge of outreach by the International Criminal Court. The limitations inherent in the medium, including general public apathy, a limited global reach, and a certain degree of necessary simplification, all curtail the extent to which it can be used. However, it nevertheless remains a valuable potential tool for the ICC if careful strategy is used in the selection of platforms and techniques.

First, the Court should increase its Twitter presence and expand the ability of individuals to address the Court through this channel directly, thus creating the desired avenue of two-way communication. Secondly, the Court should expand its use of its YouTube channel and more directly engage with the International Criminal Court Forum website, allowing for a broader discussion of its policies and enabling it to both field comments on what areas of its work the public is the most interested and concerned with, and granting a forum to respond to these concerns. Finally, the ICC should be proactive on all of these platforms in addressing misconceptions and combating willful misinformation, as the instant nature of social media enables the court to head off these problems before even greater confusion ensues. By pursuing these strategies while keeping in mind the particular limitations of the medium, social media has the potential to significantly further the outreach goals of the International Criminal Court.

Endnotes — (click the footnote reference number, or ↩ symbol, to return to location in text).

1. 1.

   International Criminal Court, Assembly of State Parties, Strategic Plan for Outreach of the International Criminal Court, ICC-ICC/5/12, Part I.1.2, at 3 (Sep. 29, 2006), [hereinafter Strategic Plan], available online. ↩

2. 2.

   Id., pt. I.1.1 at 3. ↩

3. 3.

   Id., pt. I.1.3 at 3. ↩

4. 4.

   Id. ↩

5. 5.

   Id. ↩

6. 6.

   Aaron Smith, 6 New Facts About Facebook, Pew Research Center (Feb. 3, 2014), available online. ↩

7. 7.

   David Westerman, Patric R. Spence, & Brandon Van Der Heide, Social Media as Information Source: Recency of Updates and Credibility of Information, 19 Jour. Computer-Mediated Comm., 171, 173 (2014), available online. J. Computer-Mediated Comm. ↩

8. 8.

   Peter R. Scott & J. Mike Jacka, Auditing Social Media: a Governance and Risk Guide at 5 (Wiley 2011). ↩

9. 9.

   Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, Facebook Remains top Social Network, Google+, YouTube Battle for Second, ZDnet (May 14, 2013), available online. ↩

10. 10.

    Westerman, et al., supra note 7 at 172. ↩

11. 11.

    Id. ↩

12. 12.

    Id. ↩

13. 13.

    Juliette Harkin, Is It Possible to Understand the Syrian Revolution Through the Prism of Social Media?, 9 WPCC, 93, 95 (Apr. 2013), available online. ↩

14. 14.

    Strategic Plan, supra note 1. ↩

15. 15.

    Michael A. Stelzner, 2013 Social Media Marketing Industry Report: How Marketers are Using Social Media to Grow Their Businesses at 5, Social Media Examiner (May 2013), available online. ↩

16. 16.

    See generally ICC on Twitter, available online. ↩

17. 17.

    Faith Karimi, African Union Accuses ICC of Bias, Seeks Delay of Cases Against Sitting Leaders, CNN, Oct. 12, 2013, available online. ↩

18. 18.

    Strategic Plan, supra note 1. ↩

19. 19.

    Human Rights Watch, Courting History: the Landmark International Criminal Court’s First Years at 99-100, (Jul. 2008) [hereinafter Courting History] available online. ↩

20. 20.

    Charli Carpenter, Kony 2012: Seven Questions about Social Media Campaigns and International Law, Opinio Juris (Apr. 18, 2012), available online. ↩

21. 21.

    Courting History, supra note 19 at 127. ↩

22. 22.

    North America, Internet World Stats, available online (last visited Apr. 5, 2014). ↩

23. 23.

    Africa, Internet World Stats, available online (last visited Apr. 5, 2014). ↩

24. 24.

    Id. ↩

25. 25.

    Joseph Kony, Google Trends, available online (last visited Apr. 5, 2014). ↩

26. 26.

    Melanie Mathos & Chad Norman, 101 Social Media Tactics for Nonprofits: a Field Guide at 94 (Wiley Feb. 7, 2012). ↩

27. 27.

    See generally Margaret E. Keck & Kathryn Sikkink, Activism Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics (Cornell University Press Mar. 4, 1998). ↩

28. 28.

    Invisible Children, Kony 2012, YouTube (Mar. 5, 2012), available online. ↩

29. 29.

    Adam Branch, Dangerous Ignorance: the Hysteria of Kony 2012, Al Jazeera, Mar. 12, 2012, available online. ↩

30. 30.

    Invisible Children, Kony 2012 Part II: Beyond Famous, YouTube (Apr. 5, 2012), available online. ↩