Did You Know that Donald Rumsfeld is an Unindicted War Criminal?

Refugees Peacekeepers ICJ


Are IGOs very powerful
– Barnett & Finnemore argue so
– but, Big Cheese is very skeptical
– B&F would say IGOs indepent
– but BC finds serious problems with all their cases
– think of UNHCR — growed because of UNHCR actions or because States found it convenient, especially with Soviet invasion of Hungary (internally displaced persons, not refugees)
– also think of politicization after Rwanda genocide, where Hutu militias mixed in with civilians at UNHCR camps
— in Rwanda case, UNHCR Secretariat was unable to make States act because not in State interest, and UNHCR did not “teach” a new interest
– /but/ – UNHCR then “rented” Congo soldiers (under UN Observers) — UNHCR militia?
– BC: IGOs independent when States do not care
– also during Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, UNHCR more active in Pakistani camps than Iranian camps, because States hostile to Iran, but US friendly to Pakistan
– BF and BC agree that the bureaucracy is important – Secretariat, not just Secretary
– BF argues there is a “culture of repatriation” in UNHCR, but BC cites memoirs of UNHCRs who fought against states (and lost) on forced repatriation
– BC: though it’s against internationa law, states forcibly return refugees to dangerous situations “all the time”

my q: “Does this create the danger of an ‘illegal norm’ against non-repatriation?”

BC: “This goes back to the old question on Article II/4 (the use of force). If states violate something all the time, but claim they don’t, does this erase law?”

my q: “To what extent is the UNHCR’s camps during Afghan War proof of B&F’s thesis, because a permanent UNSC combatant could not stop UNHCR?”

BC: UNHCR regime was created by Western powers against Soviets during invasion of crisis Hungary . So Afghanistan is not an exception

back to lecture:

remember, original UNHCR regimed created “against” Soviet Union
– but it become big during India’s dismemberment of Pakistan

BC: “The Western states view of the UNHCR is that the UNHCR should care for these people… over there”

student Q: What about situations in Europe where refugees go through several countries? Is there still a country A, B, C, D, E, etc, even if they are only in the country for minutes and the state does not know they are there?
BC: a “tangled area” of internation law; the problem is caused by economic underdevelopment
– UN peacekeepers as “enablers” of human traffic becuase they use the indentured workers (brothels, etc)

UN Peacekeeping

– UN Charter says nothing about peacekeeping (not forseen in 1945)
– “purely customary international law… it arises out of practice”
– first largescale UN Peacekeeping in 1956 in response to the Suez Crisis
– some smaller “blue helmet” forces earlier (India, Israel, etc), but only in Suez does it become thousands
– next big one: Congo (1960-1964)
– (UN almost collapsed because of Congo / French, Soviet refusals?)
– pecaekeeping is “armed interpositioning” with the consent of the parties effected
– would fall under Chapter VI on UNC (The Peaceful Resolution of Disputes)
– whereas Chapter VII is action against somebody (Enforcement)
– BC: “journalism aside, Peacekeeping is not Enforcement”

– United Nations Assistance Mission in Rwanda
– began to Implement Arusha Accords / Ceasefire
– Chapter VI (Peacekeeping) Operations
– Delaire (author of “Shake Hands with the Devil”) wants to take action, but Secretariat skeptical because UN Secretariat (Kofi Annan, Peacekeeping Department, etc) refuse because of Chapter VI concerns
– another example of State pressure trumping what the IGO would otherwise want
– BC: charitable interpretation is that Annan wanted to ‘save UN peacekeeping,’ because unlateral UN peacekeeping acts would alienate US, UK, FR, etc
– Operation: Turquoise – after-the-fact France-supported UN chapter VII operation to save French-speaking Tutsi allies of Paris

International Court of Justice (World Court)

– can get a binding case three ways
1. Ad Hoc Agreement between states
2. Treaty Decision
3. Any state can uliterally make a declaration under article 36/2 that the ICJ has jurisdiction for certain kind of cases (as long as there is reciprocity under the same conditions with nation that would sue)
– can get a mediating case one way
1. UNSC asks for an advisory agreement

Nicaragua v. United States
– 1980s
– Nicaragua claims that because US gave compulsory jurisdiction to League of Nations’ PCIJ back in the day, grant still given to UN ICJ
– US claims Nicaragua didn’t join the League of Nations, so invalid
– ICJ rules against US on procedurial grounds
– old (Truman -> Reagan) jurisdiction given, except for Connoley amendment (except for domestic jurisdiction as defined by US) and Vandenburg amendment (which argues multilateral treaty can’t be used as basis unless ALL UN Members are a party)
– ICJ rules against US on substantive grounds
– ICJ said instead, US violated customary internation law, to which all members are a party
– so US “walks aout,” Reagan withdraws grand of compulsary jurisdiction (never regiven by any administration)

BC: “In general, the end of the Cold War hasn’t changed too much for the ICJ. During the Cold War, about two or three cases a year. After the Cold War, up to ten cases a war. Of UNSCR5, only UK has given grant of compulsary jurisdiction (except for cases pertaining to armed conflict)”
BC: “States don’t like to use the World Court [ICJ], because that would establish a precedents of the ICJ deciding cases. Even European states, which have regional courts, do not use the ICJ much.”
BC: “Many legal scholars do not see a great role for the ICJ. It can be in particular issues, and its been a bit of the thorn in the side of the US on death penalty cases involving illegal aliens… but in the earlier cases, these people would executed anyway.”

International Criminal Court (ICC)
not based on the principle of universal jurisdiction
– not part of the UN

Pinochet case
Judge Gurzon prosecuting under IL
BC: “universal jurisdiction” is why Rumsfeld, Kissinger don’t leave the country much – “unindicted war criminals”

BC: US policy to Cubans the same as China’s policy toward North Koreans