Today ICC delivered its first verdict, 10 years after it was first established. It has used up to $900 million of expenditure in 10 years with just one verdict to show. With cases lining up to be tried many worry that ICC budget will keep going up significantly. Some begin to question ICC effectiveness and, even, usefulness.
I think such concern is justified, Yet, I believe that despite the cost it is worth it to have ICC as a permanent international court. The international world needs ICC as a mechanism to ensure prosecution for the worse international crimes. Without it, we will be left only with regional mechanisms, or international tribunals such as the ones for former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and everybody knows how expensive international tribunals can be. In fact they are actually more expensive than ICC. Whereas regional mechanisms have limited reach and scope. ICC is relatively cheaper than international tribunals and have wider reach and scope than the regional mechanisms.
In addition to that, ICC can play a larger role than just prosecuting cases. It can add pressures to governments to take actions to stop human rights violation by using its investigation and communication function, it can help shape public opinions, and many more.
ICC helps by shaping international law jurisprudence by its decisions (although we only have one so far, I am sure we will have more). Countries can refer to ICC to help decide human rights cases on their own.
Lastly, ICC is a noble human endeavor which should not be judged by how much it costs us. We sent human to the moon, probes to the farthest distance of the solar system, and we don't care about how much that cost us, because we believe that such endeavors will advance civilization and the human race. We should treat this ICC project with the same passion and belief. At the very least, I think it is better to fund ICC than to pay for more guns and bombs.
Yes. ICC is worth it.
Check this link for more info: http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/exeres/A70A5D27-18B4-4294-816F-BE68155242E0.htm
Wednesday 14 March 2012
Monday 12 March 2012
ICJ to Decide on Hissene Habre's Case
Belgium has filed a case in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to request Senegal to extradite the former president of Chad, Hissene Habre.
Hissene Habre is a former president of Chad from 1982 to 1990 before he was forced to step down by Idriss Deby. According to human rights activitis Habre was responsible for the killings and torture of thousands of people during his rule. After his fall, Habre went to live in Senegal and has stayed there ever since.
The first attempt to indict Mr. Habre was in the court of Senegal, but it was then ruled by the court that Mr. Habre cannot be tried there. The victims then went to Belgium who claims universal jurisdiction for international crimes (which covers genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity). In 2005, the Belgium court issued a ruling to arrest Mr. Habre for crimes against humanity. Since then, Belgium has been trying to extradite Mr. Habre from Senegal, but to no avail. The filing of the case to ICJ is the latest attempt by Belgium to bring Mr. Habre to justice. Belgium cites a duty for all states in the world in regards to international crimes to prosecute or to extradite alleged offender. Therefore, if Senegal does not want to prosecute Mr. Habre, it should extradite him to a country that will, which in this case is Belgium.
I find this case is interesting for a number of reasons.
First, because it represents a real test for the universal jurisdiction claimed by Belgium. If this succeeds, then it can set a precedent for other countries to follow Belgium's example, that is to claim universal jurisdiction for international crimes. If this happens then any country can put to trial anyone on international crimes charges, even if that person is a foreign citizen and does not reside in the country where the trial takes place. This will represent a major breakthrough for the fight against impunity for many international crimes.
Second, it represents a real test for ICJ to judge on human rights cases. There were cases on human rights put to ICJ before, but the quantity is not that great. Therefore this has the potential to set further precedents on human rights cases in ICJ, and I hope it will be a positive precedent.
Of course, one should not overestimate the impact of this case on the development of international human rights law. For one thing, ICJ's decisions are binding only to state parties involved. Also, there are only a limited numbers of states who recognized the jurisdiction of ICJ, which means the impact will be very limited. But despite that, I still think this will be an important precedent for human rights justice.
Hissene Habre is a former president of Chad from 1982 to 1990 before he was forced to step down by Idriss Deby. According to human rights activitis Habre was responsible for the killings and torture of thousands of people during his rule. After his fall, Habre went to live in Senegal and has stayed there ever since.
The first attempt to indict Mr. Habre was in the court of Senegal, but it was then ruled by the court that Mr. Habre cannot be tried there. The victims then went to Belgium who claims universal jurisdiction for international crimes (which covers genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity). In 2005, the Belgium court issued a ruling to arrest Mr. Habre for crimes against humanity. Since then, Belgium has been trying to extradite Mr. Habre from Senegal, but to no avail. The filing of the case to ICJ is the latest attempt by Belgium to bring Mr. Habre to justice. Belgium cites a duty for all states in the world in regards to international crimes to prosecute or to extradite alleged offender. Therefore, if Senegal does not want to prosecute Mr. Habre, it should extradite him to a country that will, which in this case is Belgium.
I find this case is interesting for a number of reasons.
First, because it represents a real test for the universal jurisdiction claimed by Belgium. If this succeeds, then it can set a precedent for other countries to follow Belgium's example, that is to claim universal jurisdiction for international crimes. If this happens then any country can put to trial anyone on international crimes charges, even if that person is a foreign citizen and does not reside in the country where the trial takes place. This will represent a major breakthrough for the fight against impunity for many international crimes.
Second, it represents a real test for ICJ to judge on human rights cases. There were cases on human rights put to ICJ before, but the quantity is not that great. Therefore this has the potential to set further precedents on human rights cases in ICJ, and I hope it will be a positive precedent.
Of course, one should not overestimate the impact of this case on the development of international human rights law. For one thing, ICJ's decisions are binding only to state parties involved. Also, there are only a limited numbers of states who recognized the jurisdiction of ICJ, which means the impact will be very limited. But despite that, I still think this will be an important precedent for human rights justice.
Saturday 10 March 2012
International Women's Day
This is a bit late, but to celebrate the International Women's Day on March 8th, I am putting these links:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkarsUszRfg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEFTC05cmhk&feature=related
They are the speech delivered by Hillary Clinton at the 4th World Conference on Women in Beijing, 1994. Many people consider this speech as a historic speech, because it gives passionate articulation of why women's rights should be considered as part of human rights, and therefore human rights protection should also cover the protection of women's rights. It's a wonderful speech and I hope you enjoy listening to it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkarsUszRfg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEFTC05cmhk&feature=related
They are the speech delivered by Hillary Clinton at the 4th World Conference on Women in Beijing, 1994. Many people consider this speech as a historic speech, because it gives passionate articulation of why women's rights should be considered as part of human rights, and therefore human rights protection should also cover the protection of women's rights. It's a wonderful speech and I hope you enjoy listening to it.
Friday 9 March 2012
Kony 2012? Good or Bad?
The youtube video 'Kony 2012', made by a group called "Invisible Children" went viral in the last couple of weeks. The video is aiming to make Joseph Kony - indicted war criminal by the ICC and still on the lose - to be so famous that his capture becomes possible. In its first week the video hit 20 million views. Now it is approaching 60 million views.
Although it has raised a lot of awareness regarding Joseph Kony, it has also drawn many critics. Some people say that the video over-simplifies the conflict in Uganda, painting it in a black-and-white frame. It portrays Joseph Kony as the ultimate bad guy that needs to be captured . There are some other things too.
I think there are some truths in what the critics are saying. However, I will just let you read their articles by yourself. Here are the links:
http://visiblechildren.tumblr.com/post/18890947431/we-got-trouble
and
http://thisisafrica.wordpress.com/2012/03/07/acholi-street-stop-kony2012-invisible-childrens-campaign-of-infamy/
Of course it won't be fair unless I put invisible children's answer to the critics. Here is the link:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/www.invisiblechildren.com/critiques.html
Although it has raised a lot of awareness regarding Joseph Kony, it has also drawn many critics. Some people say that the video over-simplifies the conflict in Uganda, painting it in a black-and-white frame. It portrays Joseph Kony as the ultimate bad guy that needs to be captured . There are some other things too.
I think there are some truths in what the critics are saying. However, I will just let you read their articles by yourself. Here are the links:
http://visiblechildren.tumblr.com/post/18890947431/we-got-trouble
and
http://thisisafrica.wordpress.com/2012/03/07/acholi-street-stop-kony2012-invisible-childrens-campaign-of-infamy/
Of course it won't be fair unless I put invisible children's answer to the critics. Here is the link:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/www.invisiblechildren.com/critiques.html
Thursday 1 March 2012
The Public and the Private in Human Rights
Human Rights was first constructed to limit states' power and sovereignty. The limiting of state power then created two separate spaces, called the Public and the Private. The Public is the space where state operates, whereas the private is the space where state cannot operate. One of the aims of human rights activism, in particular the Western-type human rights activism, is the enlargement of the Private space and the reducing of the Public space. However, for me, this type of activism can be problematic in various regards.
The first one is that the whole human rights regime, the international treaties and conventions, which is supposed to be adopted by states, depends on state sovereignty. It depends on the state willingness to adopt the human rights regime in its system. If human rights is aiming to reduce the limit of state power, the question then: how can we expect states to adopt human rights regime, if they know that this regime will cause their power to diminish? How to make states to comply to something that they clearly do not want?
The Transnational Legal Process theory tries to answer this question by pointing out the role of the domestic civil society (represented by NGOs) in the internalization of human rights norm. However, this can only be possible in a relatively democratic country, where the involvement of civil society is an essential component of legitimacy. The theory cannot answer how autocratic states can be forced to comply to human rights regime. This huge blank becomes particularly relevant when we take a look at some real life examples, such as what happening in China, or in Burma, now.
I do not have a clear answer, now. However, one of my hunches (let us call it a hunch), is probably that human rights activism should not be aimed at limiting states power on these countries, rather it should appear as if human rights can expand states power, by expanding the public and limiting the private, rather the other way around, thus enticing these autocratic states to adopt human rights regime. Again, this is not a clear answer, just a hunch. I cannot deliberate further here, because of limited space and time. I do think that more research should be done on this area.
The second problem is that this distinction can sometimes blurred the question of responsibility. Many feminist activists have pointed this problem. Their well known jargon is “the private is the political”. By that, they try to point out that the women oppression do not happen only in the public sphere, but it also happens – or it happens particularly – in the private sphere. Because it happens in the private sphere, responsibility becomes a non-issue and oppression can continue without challenge. The private sphere, which is supposed to become a place of sanctuary from states oppression, becomes the very place that human rights activists loathe: a jail, or even a torture chamber, where no one can interfere.
The third problem is related to the previous one. Recent experience has shown us that human rights violation can happen not just when states become too powerful. Now we have a notion of “failed states”, where states cannot perform its function in providing the protection of human rights. On these failed states, violation of human rights happen on daily basis. Yet even so, people know about these things, the question of who has the responsibility to protect becomes useless to ask, and the distinction of the public and the private becomes redundant. At the end of the day, even though human rights is aiming to limit states power, we still need the states, even if their function is only to enforce the distinction between the public and the private.
I am not saying that we should do away with the separation between the public and private. In certain respect, maybe we do need this distinction. We need a space where state cannot interrupt and disturb our lives. However, I think it is really important to rethink about the balance between what is public and what is private, in the context of human rights.
The first one is that the whole human rights regime, the international treaties and conventions, which is supposed to be adopted by states, depends on state sovereignty. It depends on the state willingness to adopt the human rights regime in its system. If human rights is aiming to reduce the limit of state power, the question then: how can we expect states to adopt human rights regime, if they know that this regime will cause their power to diminish? How to make states to comply to something that they clearly do not want?
The Transnational Legal Process theory tries to answer this question by pointing out the role of the domestic civil society (represented by NGOs) in the internalization of human rights norm. However, this can only be possible in a relatively democratic country, where the involvement of civil society is an essential component of legitimacy. The theory cannot answer how autocratic states can be forced to comply to human rights regime. This huge blank becomes particularly relevant when we take a look at some real life examples, such as what happening in China, or in Burma, now.
I do not have a clear answer, now. However, one of my hunches (let us call it a hunch), is probably that human rights activism should not be aimed at limiting states power on these countries, rather it should appear as if human rights can expand states power, by expanding the public and limiting the private, rather the other way around, thus enticing these autocratic states to adopt human rights regime. Again, this is not a clear answer, just a hunch. I cannot deliberate further here, because of limited space and time. I do think that more research should be done on this area.
The second problem is that this distinction can sometimes blurred the question of responsibility. Many feminist activists have pointed this problem. Their well known jargon is “the private is the political”. By that, they try to point out that the women oppression do not happen only in the public sphere, but it also happens – or it happens particularly – in the private sphere. Because it happens in the private sphere, responsibility becomes a non-issue and oppression can continue without challenge. The private sphere, which is supposed to become a place of sanctuary from states oppression, becomes the very place that human rights activists loathe: a jail, or even a torture chamber, where no one can interfere.
The third problem is related to the previous one. Recent experience has shown us that human rights violation can happen not just when states become too powerful. Now we have a notion of “failed states”, where states cannot perform its function in providing the protection of human rights. On these failed states, violation of human rights happen on daily basis. Yet even so, people know about these things, the question of who has the responsibility to protect becomes useless to ask, and the distinction of the public and the private becomes redundant. At the end of the day, even though human rights is aiming to limit states power, we still need the states, even if their function is only to enforce the distinction between the public and the private.
I am not saying that we should do away with the separation between the public and private. In certain respect, maybe we do need this distinction. We need a space where state cannot interrupt and disturb our lives. However, I think it is really important to rethink about the balance between what is public and what is private, in the context of human rights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)