March 11, 2003
THE ALTERNATIVE TO WAR (via Free Republic):
Annan: War Court Can Help Change Regimes (AP, 3/11/2003)
In a remark that could be directed against precipitous U.S. military action in Iraq, Annan said the creators of the tribunal had considered "the implications such a court might have for the delicate process of dismantling tyrannies and replacing them with more democratic regimes committed to uphold human rights."..."International law can be extremely effective in destabilizing tyrannical leaders who have a history of atrocities," [said the man who signed the treaty on behalf of the United States, former war crimes ambassador David Scheffer]...
The new court is modeled on the temporary tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Its rules and procedures will be set out in coming months by the judges and, once elected, the prosecutor.
The member states have been unable to find a consensus candidate for prosecutor.
Mr. Scheffer's belief that international law can overthrow tyrants represents a triumph of hope over experience, not to mention good sense. Mr. Annan is more subdued in his language, befitting a cautious diplomat: he only admits that the creators considered implications. Still, the reporter gets his drift, and amplifies it (with the uncalled-for "precipitous").
The fascinating thing about this "international law" is that there appears nothing lawful about it. There is no agreement on rules and procedures, so some chosen prosecutor will dictate rules and procedures, and then judges will create their own variations. The law will apply to persons and jurisdictions that never consented to be governed by it. It creates a multiplicity of law-making authorities in any jurisdiction, so that if the ICC is respected, no one will be able to know what the "law" is. And these people believe that this retreat from negotiation and the rule of law will somehow reduce conflict, instead of just giving us new things to fight over - like who the prosecutor should be.
Posted by Paul Jaminet at March 11, 2003 3:25 PMIt's a lot worse than that, Paul.
The current tribunals are handing down -- when they hand down anything -- derisory sentences, about equal to what you get for knocking over a Stop 'n Rob in Georgia. This is historic. With a handful of exceptions, the Nuremburg and Tokyo tribunals handed out trivial sentences for mass crimes, then even these joke sentences were usually commuted.
It is a fact that the ordinary German POWS in the hands of the Soviets in May 1945 spent more time in prison (10 years) than the average Nazi highup.
International tribunals are a sick joke and if they do anything at all, they can only encourage evildoers to proceed.
We are not here talking about the triumph of hope over experience. We are talking about a system set up -- deliberately, one has to suppose -- to reward criminals.
National tribunals, on the other hand, may not often win awards for court procedure, but they do shoot and hang murderers, and that ought to be the goal, shouldn't it?
Harry - I can't read others' hearts and judge motives. However, my impression of Scheffer from his writings is that he truly believes the ICC and other projects of the "transnational progressives" will create a liberal international order.
Posted by: pj at March 11, 2003 5:55 PMI can't read hearts, either, so I go by behavior.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 11, 2003 9:09 PM