Courts and International Justice

Courts and International Justice
– big expansion of international courts since ’93 (ICTY in 93, ICTR for 94, ICC more recently, plus mixed courts, plus Iraqi courts)
– international criminal courts tries individuals, not states
– “adjudication linked to international norms”

Expectations of International Criminal Courts
– deter atrocities in the future
– catharsis (look at dramatic history — how was catharsis created in Greece? trials? doesn’t the tragedy create its own catharsis?) (student piont: for victims or the West?)
– punish (exact justice)
– information gathering
– further develop Law (but why should Law be developed? as an end in itself?!?)
– Peace (no justice, no peace as descriptive… but justice not part of liberal tripod, so if this isn’t Realist or Liberal, is this just a constructivist argument?)

but — in South Africa, Guatemala, and El Salvador, Truth commissions operated instead of Courts
– Sierra Leon has both a Truth commission and a UN/local hybrid court system

Big Cheese: “There have been clarifications of international law come out of the ICTY and ICTY”

BC: Some “have said genocide is driven by such irrational beliefs, international courts may be ineffective deterence”
my thought: or is it that international law just is so weak?

BC: It is clear that some leaders, during peacetime, do worry about international law. But that doesn’t mean that a Rumsfeld won’t authorize torture.

In Rwanda, “big fish” tried in ICTR with no death penalty, but lower-level guys are tried in Rwandan courts and can get the death penalty

These courts are Chapter VII — enforcement actions — so even when states ask for international courts, they can substantially reduce sovereignty.

BC: I would say I’m not sure it’s a bad idea to have these courts imposed on societies… It’s probably a good thing to impose an international regime on the Balkans, for shock value.

[Imperialism — the first controversial thing he’s said that I agree with 🙂 for you, Curzon, Younghusband, and Chirol ]

student Q: Is there a need for an International Bar Association, to help states that have destroyed legal systems?
— part of Barnett’s A-Z Ruleset for Processing Politically Bankrupt States

BC: ICTY “created for wrong reasons; created for political reasons”

international law as a battlespace /helping/ the West? just PR or entable Seam states?

Downsides of Courts
– overriding state sovereignty and national culture
– may impeed negotiations (so UNSC can vote to delay ICC proceedings for 1 year, renewable)

BC: In the Balkans, in the ’90s, Milosevic was both the arsonist and the fire-fighter
– similar to TPMB saying Iran has a veto in Iraq?

for ICC, there is no rule that requires any prosecution — all ICC prosecutions are political (same for Attornies General generally)

student comment: the fear of giving the alleged a platform leads down the dangerous road of state-sponsored disappearances

– typically defined by bilaterial treaties
– tax haven countries typically don’t have them
– a list of “common crimes” is defined, where both countries agree to extradite
– so-called “political crimes” typically aren’t included
– (this caused US/UK trouble when Northern Irish fled to Boston)
– typically, US wants confidence in that country’s justice system first
– however, some crimes (hijacking of airplanes) require extradition or trial by treaty
– in some cases there is a duty to cooperate with ICTY, ICTR, …

Alverez Marchein
– Mexican doctor helped keep DEA agent alive to torture him longer
– US paid bounty hunters to kidnap Marchein
– OOPS! wrong guy (hmmm…)

Regional International Law & Organization

US rationally calculates how much any given international or regional organization helps or harms it, especially economic

BC: You can’t have a Gramscian analysis without a discusison of economic ideals
– does this imply that we are trying to evolve international organizations?
– Why do analysts use Rationalism instead of Baynesianism?

Hagland: “Americans never make good realists”
– excludes European immigrants such as Kissinger
– big exception: Nixon
– “America is unable to resist the siren song of Crusading on behalf of ideals that besmirch rather than enoble the country’s geopolitical soul”
multilateralism as the “extension of American politics to the farther shores of two American oceans”
– while US attempts to act rationally, American belief in American divinely-given exceptionalism gets in the way… but more rationalism would make things fine
– Hagland: Nato “not a community of values,” but a security alliance (takes it to a “higher, but not more relevent, plane”) — (so does this imply not real international law?) — that is, NATO not pro-democracy but pro-US/Canada/UK/Germany/etc

random gripe: why do some American students refer to Americans as “them,” not “us”?

BC: “I would argue that it was not until 1981 that uniteralism would refurse with a vengence… and it was doctrinal unilateralism, not constrained by rationalism or whether we needed allies or not… During the Cold Wars we tied outselves to NATO”

Another good phrase: “Much of Europe represents a post-Westphalian governance”.. (or is it just Federal?)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *