Utopia deferred

Ronnie

Strange but I thought Melanie would have been happy to see war criminals, from wherever in the world, prosecuted within a permanent legal framework.

What could she be so afraid of?

Fabio P.Barbieri

So an unworthy prosecutor has been appointed and has acted badly? Does this invalidate the principle of a criminal court to judge cases that national courts are incapable of judging? Because if the presence of unsuitable persons in position of authority invalidated institutions, the post of Prime Minister of the United Kingdom - and indeed, the United Kingdom itself - ought to be abolished. And so, for that matter, ought the Daily Mail and the Jewish Chronicle.

Dee Ranged

Ronnie - you fool!

You have entirely missed the point.

mainlining

A typical Melanie post. Loathing, scorn and contempt all very well done. Gloating too.

But what exactly is the point?

There's none that I can find. Still less any argument to get me there.

But I guess that's not really what it's all about.

Ronnie

No Dee Ranged, I don't think I have. I don't think you even see the point. You fool.

Robin

mainlining - the point is obvious for those who read Melanie's post carefully.

Prosecutors do really need to be whiter than white, especially in this type of court. The ICC is inevitably going to have to deal with cases on behalf of victims who have suffered immeasurable pain. They need the prosecutor to be above criticism.

sirius

Melanie's point seems simple and obvious to every honest reader: most if not all Internationnal Organizations are corrupt and expensive failures. Not that we would not want the criminals to be prosecuted.
But the International structures just can't deliver anything except huge salaries for their employees.
After 7 years of working, ICC main prosecutor appears corrupt and should be prosecuted, Durban conferences are a farce, human rights council in Geneva is a joke, FAO in Rome is corrupt, International tribunal in Den Hague is biased, ONG are all financed by governments have their own agendas and are politically biased, UN intervention forces are corrupt and child rapers, the World Bank is corrupt beyond repair, and the UN in NY is the biggest farce of all.
Not that we would not want them work properly.
But one should face it : they are corrupt, do not deliver and cost a hell of a lot of money.

Jane

Once you start ceding authority outside of your own country you are destined for the dustbin.

All international relations should be at arm's length and allegiances only built with allies that hold your values, otherwise you put yourself in the basket with rotten apples and they'll soon turn you rotten too.

The failure of this court's first prosecution shows there is no international legal magic wand and it's dangerous to pretend there is.

mainlining

Shall we keep a little score here? Just for fun, like.

So far I think:

1 person can't see what Melanie's point is (that's me) .

1 person seems to think Melanie has a point, but (s)he hasn't said what they thinks it is (Dee Ranged)

2 people think Melanie's point is "obvious", but don't agree about what it is (Robin and sirius)

2 people, broadly speaking, seem to think that Melanie has missed the point (Ronnie and Fabio P.Barbieri).

Any more?

Ronnie

Well, its like this.

At the end of wars the victors get to do two things. They write the history and they decide what happens to the people they defeated. This includes prosecuting war criminals.

However, the war criminals on the side of the victor are seldom prosecuted and many people, including me, think that is a pity. War crime is war crime and victory should not exonerate the perpetrator.

Something like the ICC is intended to make this possible and should also reduce the lynch-mob scenario, present when only the victors are doing the prosecuting.

However, some governments oppose the general idea of an ICC because they fear that their normally victorious military and political leaders may themselves be liable for prosecution. I think that's a chance they take and that they should have behaved better. Maybe they should have been more honest about the reasons for going to war, for example.

One person's hero is always someone else's mass murderer...

For me it is a real shame that the ICC can't seem to function as it should, it is not a cause for cynical celebration.

Michael B

Embarassing in theory only. The tranzi left and left in general evidences exceedingly little capacity for embarrassment. Whether it's Stalin's statistics or "merely" Uncle Ho's statistics, it makes little difference. Memory hole histories and narratives in general somehow serve, in the minds of such a preposterously imaginative left, as adequate substitutes for dealing with the far more problematic realities. And if one fails to honor and applaud these fantasist, utopian-like imaginings, a cacophony of sniffs and snorts are guaranteed to ensue.

John Rosenthal, writing in Policy Review, A Lawless Global Court. The entire article lends insight and is probative of some elemental issues, but a brief excerpt, from the concluding summary:

"The very idea of an international criminal court may well be a dangerously utopian one to begin with. As various critics of the ICC have pointed out, courts derive whatever democratic legitimacy they may enjoy from being embedded in more comprehensive systems of government in which their powers are checked by democratically accountable institutions. In the absence, then, of a “world government,” a “world court” will necessarily be unbound from all the constraints that prevent judicial practice from degenerating into judicial tyranny. (In deference to this fact, the International Court of Justice, in marked contrast to the ICC, may only adjudicate disputes among states and, even then, only with their consent. It has no jurisdiction over persons.) A careful examination of the ICC’s statute, however, reveals that the ICC is not merely a matter of good intentions gone awry in the face of stubborn political realities. The ICC, so to say, has been made to be abused. It threatens to replace a classical international law whose purpose was to secure peace with a supposedly “new” international law whose raison d’être is war."

Precisely. Institutionally and theoretically, it is precisely classical international conceptions and law that need to be ever newly supported and founded - not utopian or quasi-utopian institutions that largely serve the ideologically unmoored imaginings of the fantasist left. Such a non-realist, unanchored approach to basic institutions serves as a type of ideologically based opiate. The ICC is but one indicator in this vein, but it is a tell-tale indicator of note.

mainlining

Ronnie, thanks, very succinct and a model of clarity. Would not disagree with anything.

Melanie on the other hand probably would. So far as I can judge anyway.

field

Well we do need world law. This is a matter of detail.

If we went back in our history in the UK, the first attempts to develop a national system of equitable law, not dependent on the Lord of the Manor, were no doubt equally flawed. But the principle was a good one.

mainlining

It's interesting and instructive to trace how this story has developed and the way it has been ratcheted up with each retelling. A long post, I know, but I hope worth it

Rosenberg has clearly been campaigning against Moreno-Ocampo – four articles in a little over 2 months. But read those articles, there's no suggestion of corruption, nor, although Rosenberg disapproves of M-O's approach, of any impropriety. As for the allegations of sexual misconduct, Rosenberg isn't above throwing them in, but in the end he reports that a panel of judges has found them to be “manifestly unfounded”.

Come to Phillips and the picture has evolved a bit. Phillips is difficult to pin down, but the sense that there has been real impropriety, if not corruption, is very strong in her piece. She writes of “gross abuse(s)” and of rights “destroyed”. She then brings in the allegations of sexual misconduct. Her husband she says also reports “an equally serious account of M-O's abusive behaviour”, before adding (very much as an after thought), not that the complaints were determined to be “manifestly unfounded”, but that they were “never substantiated”. A subtle shift, designed to discredit M-O.

Subsequent posters above have taken their cue from Phillips. Rather cleverly, but without quite saying so, Phillips has led everyone to think M-O has acted improperly and is very likely corrupt. Others now take this up.

Robin thinks prosecutors “really need to be whiter than white” - implying that M-O clearly/probably isn't. Sirius simply thinks Phillips has established that M-O is corrupt.

Go back to the Rosenberg articles however and they don't bear this out. In fact, while Rosenberg himself criticises M-O, a more sympathetic reader might come away from Rosenberg's articles thinking that poor M-O finds himself in a bit of a bind.

On the one hand the court is insisting he discloses certain documents. On the other the UN and others won't let him do so. The reason for their refusal apparently is that they fear for the safety of people named in those documents, if they are disclosed to the defendant.

This is a classic dilemma and pretty much identical to questions discussed recently in England around witness anonymity in trials – should witnesses be able to give evidence anonymously where they would otherwise fear of for their safety?

My guess is Phillips might be on the other side on that one – inclined to protect witnesses at the possible risk of a fair trial.

Which makes he insinuation of corruption in the case of M-O all the more disreputable imho.

mainlilning

As a footnote to my previous post I notice Rozenberg has another article on his site entitled “The dilemma over anonymous evidence” Its about a recent case and government attempts to reverse it. It's just below the articles about M-O.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/lawreports/joshuarozenberg/2194565/The-dilemma-over-anonymous-evidence.html

In it Rozenberg asks, “Is impunity for murderers the price we must pay to avoid miscarriages of justice.” He comes down firmly against impunity and for anonymous evidence, in doing so playing down concerns around legal principle.

It interesting therefore that he and Phillips should apparently be taking precisely the opposite position on the ICC.

So this looks like nothing more than a Phillips/Rozenberg attempt to discredit the court in any way they can.

Melanie's final comment is particular disingeneous - “What a surprise that human rights NG O's and their media acolytes have been totally silent about this most unfortunate development,” (ie that the court is “effectively paralysed”).

First, she clearly doesn't support the court. For her its not “an unfortunate development” at all, but in fact something she is rejoicing in.

Second, why shouldn't the human rights NGO's be silent? This is an entirely made up scandal. It's pretty clear there's a bit of an argument between the prosecutor and the court about procedures. Nothing more. The prosecutor is trying to persuade the court of one thing. The court is resisting. As Rozenberg should know it happens every day. Since this is the first case before the court you probably wouldn't expect otherwise.

Sirius

Mainlining feels that "corrupt" is not the best qualification for M-O. Fine, I can agree.
Please, tell us how your would qualify a prosecutor who "withheld a significant body of exculpatory evidence’ from a defendant". In my humble view, this is much, much worse than corrupt.

mainlining

Sirius, I suspect have changed it more out of convenience than any great conviction.

Are you really saying failing to disclose is “much much worse” than, say, bribing a judge or a jury?

Your post crossed with my last one I think, but there is/was clearly a dispute about the rules and what they mean.

What Phillips and Rozenberg have done is pick up a legal argument about rules and procedures. They've then put it through the distorting mill of their respective blogs and, hey presto, out the other side there's a corruption scandal. It's nothing of the kind.

It reflects badly on both of them in my view. Unfortunately these kinds of tactics are ones Phillips uses all the time.

Ronnie

OK, you've all had long enough.

On Monday 15 September, following an enquiry which he led, Desmond Tutu said that the Israeli Defence Force possibly committed a war crime when it shelled the home of a Palestinian family, killing 18 people.

I am not commenting on whether the IDF did commit a war crime, Desmond Tutu was unable to prove it as he was not allowed to interview any of the IDF personnel involved and so could not get the full picture.

My question is, hands up those who do not think that Desmond Tutu's statement and the timing of Melanie's attack on the International Criminal Court are connected?

mainlining

Ronnie, maybe but personally I'd doubt it and I'm not sure how much difference it would make if you were right. The faults of the piece are pretty manifest anyway.