New referral to the ICC, and Kansas wins...
Earlier in the week, Mr. Luis Moreno Ocampo, Prosecutor for the International Criminal Court, received a referral from the Central African Republic regarding crimes committed there since the Rome Statute's entry into force in July of 2002. http://www.icc-cpi.int/press/pressreleases/87.html. Pending review, this case would be the third to come before the Court, joining the DRC and Uganda. It is interesting that thus far all submissions are from Africa. It could be because of the devastating nature of recent conflict in the continent, that the odds are higher for a case to be from Africa simply because that's where most crimes subject to ICC prosecution take place. This is fine for now, and it's best that the early cases be submissions by States, for this allows the Court to find its bearings in a friendly context, with State cooperation, before it must institute proceedings against hostile governments. But we should be careful not to become too comfortable with all prosecutable cases coming from Africa, lest we fall prey to what I would call "international profiling". Hold that thought...
There are other mechanisms available for the prosecution of crimes against humanity, the current U.S. administration would have the world avail itself of them, of course, because they hate the ICC (another subject for another day...). We have seen in Sierra Leone that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (http://www.sierra-leone.org/trcataglance.html) is having difficulties with the UN Special Court for Sierra Leone (http://www.sc-sl.org/). These difficulties pop up whenever the TRC approach is tried, because while there is a legitimate need for reconciliation and national healing, and a TRC can serve as an incentive to end abuses, there is also a need for justice to be served with regard to the perpetrators. Critics of the ICC will cling to the tension in Sierra Leone to claim that the TRC's criticism of the SCSL are applicable to their own concerns. The argument is basically this: a grieving mother wants to know what happened to her child, and a TRC gives the person who knows an incentive to tell her, whereas a prosecution gives that person an incentive to clam up, hoping that the body is never found so that he can avoid being convicted. I personally prefer having a court, because while a TRC does encourage tyrants to step down, a solid legal framework gives them an incentive not to ascend in the first place. Further, it is difficult to justify complete amnesty for a kidnapper in exchange for information on the victim's (or the victim's body's) whereabouts, so why should that change when there are thousands of victims? A TRC provides healing for the relatives of those who've suffered most, it provides no remedy for the victims themselves.
Anyway, back to "international profiling" and the Central African Republic. Eventually, the ICC will venture outside of Africa. When this happens, the Court will face many difficulties, not the least of which is this "international profiling". We seem perfectly fine with all referrals coming to the ICC from Africa, it's as though we tell ourselves such atrocities are made more comprehensible because they happened over there. If we read about thousands killed with machetes, we are shocked and saddened, but then something interesting happens. If we learn that it was in Africa, that shock is lessened, as if something inside us thought that it made more sense now that we know it's Africa, but if we learn that it was in Sweden, that shock is compounded. As the Court branches out and launches propio muto investigations, it must be cognizant of this factor. I am fully confident that it will, and venture to guess that the first non-African prosecution will come out of the Andean region, but that's beside the point. It is important to keep abreast of these developments, because U.S. critics of the Court may be guilty of a sort of "international profiling". The first non-African prosecution will likely see an upsurge in rhetoric from the U.S. right, and one of the big critiques will be their preference for TRC type investigations over international criminal prosecutions.
The Washington Times, last week, reported on the TRC-SCSL rift (http://www.washtimes.com/world/20050105-094451-2582r.htm). I bring this up in the context of the Central African Republic referral, because I want to make sure that we don't just chalk up that news to "Africa". Each new case from Africa reinforces "international profiling", and as that happens we need to discuss the various approaches being taken there, including TRC's. The Washington Times has been called a conservative publication, I tend to agree. I just think it's interesting that they ran a piece based on an African report from October on the same day that the ICC was receiving a new African referral...
Speaking of crimes against humanity, the kU basketball team squeaked by Kentucky earlier. I suppose that if they want their upcoming loss to Mizzou to be the first of the season, then so be it.
There are other mechanisms available for the prosecution of crimes against humanity, the current U.S. administration would have the world avail itself of them, of course, because they hate the ICC (another subject for another day...). We have seen in Sierra Leone that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (http://www.sierra-leone.org/trcataglance.html) is having difficulties with the UN Special Court for Sierra Leone (http://www.sc-sl.org/). These difficulties pop up whenever the TRC approach is tried, because while there is a legitimate need for reconciliation and national healing, and a TRC can serve as an incentive to end abuses, there is also a need for justice to be served with regard to the perpetrators. Critics of the ICC will cling to the tension in Sierra Leone to claim that the TRC's criticism of the SCSL are applicable to their own concerns. The argument is basically this: a grieving mother wants to know what happened to her child, and a TRC gives the person who knows an incentive to tell her, whereas a prosecution gives that person an incentive to clam up, hoping that the body is never found so that he can avoid being convicted. I personally prefer having a court, because while a TRC does encourage tyrants to step down, a solid legal framework gives them an incentive not to ascend in the first place. Further, it is difficult to justify complete amnesty for a kidnapper in exchange for information on the victim's (or the victim's body's) whereabouts, so why should that change when there are thousands of victims? A TRC provides healing for the relatives of those who've suffered most, it provides no remedy for the victims themselves.
Anyway, back to "international profiling" and the Central African Republic. Eventually, the ICC will venture outside of Africa. When this happens, the Court will face many difficulties, not the least of which is this "international profiling". We seem perfectly fine with all referrals coming to the ICC from Africa, it's as though we tell ourselves such atrocities are made more comprehensible because they happened over there. If we read about thousands killed with machetes, we are shocked and saddened, but then something interesting happens. If we learn that it was in Africa, that shock is lessened, as if something inside us thought that it made more sense now that we know it's Africa, but if we learn that it was in Sweden, that shock is compounded. As the Court branches out and launches propio muto investigations, it must be cognizant of this factor. I am fully confident that it will, and venture to guess that the first non-African prosecution will come out of the Andean region, but that's beside the point. It is important to keep abreast of these developments, because U.S. critics of the Court may be guilty of a sort of "international profiling". The first non-African prosecution will likely see an upsurge in rhetoric from the U.S. right, and one of the big critiques will be their preference for TRC type investigations over international criminal prosecutions.
The Washington Times, last week, reported on the TRC-SCSL rift (http://www.washtimes.com/world/20050105-094451-2582r.htm). I bring this up in the context of the Central African Republic referral, because I want to make sure that we don't just chalk up that news to "Africa". Each new case from Africa reinforces "international profiling", and as that happens we need to discuss the various approaches being taken there, including TRC's. The Washington Times has been called a conservative publication, I tend to agree. I just think it's interesting that they ran a piece based on an African report from October on the same day that the ICC was receiving a new African referral...
Speaking of crimes against humanity, the kU basketball team squeaked by Kentucky earlier. I suppose that if they want their upcoming loss to Mizzou to be the first of the season, then so be it.
posted by Dan at 8:05 PM
1.jpg){kind=logo}
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home