Justice for all

There’s a very interesting opinion article in the International Herald Tribune about Hillary Clinton and her recent trip to China.

Hillary Clinton in China

On Wednesday, the State Department released a report criticizing China for its human rights record. However, in one of her first important diplomatic moves as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton showed little support for human rights and seemed to directly contradict the findings of the State Department report, and more generally the U.S. position regarding China & human rights.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may have set back the cause of human rights in China when she said on her Asia tour that while the United States will continue to press China on issues such as Tibet, Taiwan and human rights, “our pressing on those issues can’t interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crisis.”

Clinton’s position has two potentially detrimental effects. It undermines the long-fought campaign for a comprehensive foreign policy, one recognizing the interdependence of human rights concerns with traditional strategic goals. And it ultimately fails civil society groups in China and those suffering human rights abuses. — Sonia Cardenas

I’m shocked that Clinton chose to prioritize economic issues over human rights — not that those issues aren’t important, but simply because she’s denying that human rights is important. By choosing to separate human rights from all these other issues, Clinton also fails to understand that all these problems are interrelated. How can you progress on climate change or security when human rights at home are being violated? In the end, all these issues have to be addressed. And human rights definitely has to be one of the top priorities. For the first time, I’m incredibly disappointed in Hillary Clinton, and I hope that this doesn’t signal future blatant disregard of human rights by the Obama administration.

She went out of her way to downgrade human rights, placing economic, environmental and security relations above the abuse of countless individuals under Chinese rule - members of minority and religious groups who are systematically repressed, detainees and prisoners who are tortured, human rights and civil society activists arbitrarily detained, women and children routinely subjected to violence and discrimination and tens of thousands without recourse to an effective justice system, as well as widespread censorship. — Sonia Cardenas

And some argue that before the U.S. can criticize other countries for its human rights abuses, the U.S. has to ensure that it is respecting human rights itself. Of course, this is true, and I’ve always strongly believed that by closing Guantanamo, the U.S. will demonstrate its commitment to human rights and can become a more effective advocate of human rights around the world. But, when people attempt to use this argument as a way to effectively exempt other countries from criticism for their human rights abuses - by saying “Oh, since the U.S. is being hypocritical, they have no right to speak out against other countries’ human rights violations” - that’s what I think is wrong. Regardless of what the U.S. is doing at home, America has such great power abroad that it cannot simply ignore. The U.S. has to continue exercising this power for good, by continuing to pressure other countries - including China - to end human rights violations. American hypocrisy may end soon - or it may never end; America has never had a perfect human rights record. Does that mean that the U.S. shouldn’t work to end human rights abuses in the meantime? No. Ending human rights violations simply has to start now, rather than being postponed “sometime” into the future.

If you liked this post, please comment and subscribe for free to receive updates!

Recently, I watched an excellent interview of Kevin Jon Heller of Opinio Juris, a professor of international law as well as a defense adviser for Radovan Karadzic. Karadzic is a former Bosnian Serb leader who is currently being indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia for counts of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. He is accused of genocide - namely, ethnic cleansing campaigns in Bosnia, as well as the 1995 massacre in Srebenica when Serb troops murdered about 8,000 Muslim men. Karadzic has been accused of some of the worst crimes in history — and Heller is responsible for defending him. The interview compares defending Karadzic with defending Hitler and asks: Would you defend Hitler?

This point is fascinating because it’s something people have been questioning for ages. Why - and how can you - ethically defend someone if you know they’re guilty? The reason is the honorable institution of the fair trial. Without defending both parties involved in any case, the right to a fair trial, guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and a major civil liberty in so many countries around the world (at least on the books), is endangered. I’ve noted down the most important part of Heller’s interview below:

What really struck me was the same people who didn’t understand why I would be involved in defending a monster like Karadzic in the very next breath savagely criticized the U.S. governments for denying fair trials to the inmates at Guantanamo Bay. And I agree with the criticism of the way Guantanamo Bay detainees were treated….But it’s that blindness, that we care about giving fair trials to the accused terrorists , because I guess we think most of them are innocent, but we have no concern whatsoever with giving fair trials to someone like Dr. Karadzic. That’s what I don’t understand…The right to a fair trial extends back to the Magna Carta. This is not an optional human right that is less important than the rights of victims. I don’t think we should be prioritizing which of our human rights we want to take seriously and which  we don’t want to take seriously. To not insist upon fair trials and the right of a good defense to every accused criminal regardless of our political sympathies to them, I just think is devastating to international criminal justice in general. — Kevin Jon Heller

Being a public defender is probably one of the most difficult jobs ever. You are constantly questioned by others about the ethics of your job, and why you would even think of defending someone who has done such horrible things. But we have to think back to one of our basic human rights - the right to a fair trial. Heller makes an excellent point in stating that every criminal, regardless of the level of their crimes, deserves a fair trial. Only then can we ensure that criminal justice institutions are fair enough to save those who are in fact innocent, and to ensure the appropriate justice for those who are guilty.

So, would YOU defend Hitler?

Back at my undergraduate institution, I always ran into a problem. I could never find students interested in the same thing that I was. I’m an economics and political science major, so I love to discuss international politics and economics, and I love hearing and talking about what’s going on in the world around me. I don’t know what it was, but I’ve always had a hard time finding people to talk to about such topics. Back home, I found myself surrounded by students of all disciplines - medicine, psychology, science, religion, engineering, journalism. But since each person I knew had such diverse interests, it was difficult to get a large group of friends who wanted to talk about social science.

After coming to LSE, I finally found my niche. Everyone here, is after all a social science major. Every person I meet is studying economics or law or international history or human rights or health policy. Whatever it is, it’s something to do with understanding the world around us, understanding the way institutions work, and about the interplay of economic, political, and social forces. And whatever they’re studying — it’s guaranteed to be incredibly international. I can go up to any random student here, and I’m sure that we could easily begin a heated debate about social policy or the ICC or industrialization or Keynesian economics. I found my niche, and it’s so intellectual yet fun.

So when I started this blog, I wanted to focus on something even more specific that I love - human rights & international law. I had so enjoyed being part of conversation and debate offline, and I wanted to see if I could shift this conversation online, and find even more young people interested in similar topics. There are so many incredible bloggers writing about human rights…but somehow I’m having difficulty connecting to them. Maybe it’s because I’m so much younger? I’m only 19 after all. Most people writing about these topics seem to have attended law school, while I’m just an interested undergrad. And to be honest, my inexperience makes me afraid to comment on many of these great blogs. And many of those blogs I’ve mentioned are wonderful - but they seem to solely provide news and information for people in the field. I want to connect with bloggers who write about these issues as well as have a personal voice. I want to actually meet and befriend people, because this is so much more valuable than simply getting hits to your blog.

Essentially, I feel caught between the “Gen Y” blogging world - people excited about social media and personal branding, wanting to meet others and have conversations online - and the “Human rights/international law” world - composed of bloggers who, for the most part, post great information but don’t seem to forge personal connections online as much. I’m probably making some vast generalizations here, but this is what I’ve experienced so far in my limited blogging experience. And I’m wondering how I can bridge these two worlds. And how I can get more courage to connect with those bloggers that I do admire.

Any tips? How do you make personal connections with people in your field?

Mr. Luis Moreno-Ocampo

During my recent trip to the Hague, we also had the amazing chance to meet the ICC’s Chief Prosecutor, Mr. Luis Moreno-Ocampo. As students, we had an incredible opportunity to ask Mr. Ocampo critical questions and hear his responses and opinions; this was immensely valuable, especially as it provided me with a completely different perspective. It helped me understand how things actually work - in contrast to the theoretical arguments we consider in class.

Here are some of the more “controversial” questions and answers from the presentation. Keep in mind that these aren’t exact quotes, just paraphrases of general answers I noted down.

How does the court consider the political situation on the ground, and the situation of victims, while choosing to conduct investigations and issue arrest warrants?

The political situation changes every day, and even several times in one day. For example, we’ve had government officials call us up and thank us for issuing the arrest warrant for Lubanga, and soon after call us again to ask us to withdraw the arrest warrant because it was simply not a good time, and the political situation had changed. We can’t cater our indictments to that, and we have to pursue justice regardless of this constantly changing situation. People are saying it’s wrong but at the end of the day, the ICC is working.

How would you respond to people who say that the Court is simply working in Africa, and not taking on any cases outside of Africa, and why?

We are looking into cases outside of Africa, such as in Colombia. There are also preliminary examinations of situations in Georgia and Afghanistan. We are analysing situations from around the world, and conducting investigations into many countries. However you have to keep in mind that the ultimate goal is not to try to have a balance of cases from around the world - but just to do what is necessary and investigate the worst crimes. Some of the worst crimes right now are happening in Africa, and that is why we have so many cases in Africa. It has nothing to do with striving towards balance, but it’s about pursuing justice where it is most necessary.

***

Thomas Lubanga Dyilo

During the trip, I also got to sit in on the ICC’s trial of Thomas Lubanga, which was really exciting. These trials are quite intense; they usually have the entire courtroom behind a glass panel, and they show the audience a video of what is going on with headphones so you can listen to the entire trial in your language of choice - usually English, French, and a few more relevant languages. The accused is usually in attendance, so it is a bit surreal to see people accused of genocide sitting peacefully right in front of your eyes. It’s fascinating because usually, the judges speak English to the lawyers, who usually speak to the witness in his or her native language. So people are speaking all different languages to each other within the same courtroom, and everything is translated for you - it’s pretty funny to watch! And finally, the witness is usually sitting in a closed-off area of the courtroom so the judicial officials can see him or her, but the audience can’t - and when they show their image on the video screen, it’s usually blurred so we can’t identify the witness. It’s pretty top-secret and very cool to watch! So the Lubanga trial was very intense for the short time period we were there, since they were showing video footage of a training camp of child soldiers, in which Lubanga and other officials were essentially brainwashing the soldiers into believing that they were “fighting for peace in Ituri.” Very moving, frightening, and powerful footage.

We also went to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, and sat in on the trial of Momcilo Perisic. Perisic, the former Chief of the General Staff of the Yugoslav Army (VJ), has also been accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity. This trial wasn’t as fascinating since they seemed to be discussing various procedural issues during the time we were present.

Peace Palace

And a final highlight of my trip was when we visited Vredesplais, or the Peace Palace, which houses a number of international judicial institutions such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the Permanent Court for Arbitration (PCA). It was an absolutely beautiful building inside and out, filled with gifts donated by various States. The ICJ is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, and primarily settles legal disputes between UN member states. Similarly, the PCA was the first global mechanism to settle inter-state disputes. I learned about various conflicts that had been alleviated or even solved through arbitration and adjudication, and it made me realize once again how vast the potential of international justice is, especially in fostering peace.

To be honest, before this trip to the ICC, I was actually a bit more critical of the Court’s policies. This trip actually helped me understand firsthand what the Court is all about, and helped me think more grandly. Although there are numerous problems to be solved in the short-run, and the Court is still so young - this trip opened my eyes to the immense potential the ICC has to help alleviate some of the world’s most complex conflicts in the long-run. Imagine: if it was absolutely sure that the Court would bring a perpetrator responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes to justice — if a leader responsible of such acts was guaranteed to be arrested — imagine how much deterrent power the Court would have. This trip, though it did show me the realities and inefficiencies present within the Court, ultimately gave me hope that someday this dream - on such a grand scale - can and will be achieved.

From Monday to Wednesday this week, I visited The Hague in the Netherlands with the International Criminal Court Student Network (ICCSN). The purpose of our “field trip” was to learn about the ICC and its work in a more concrete and realistic manner, as opposed to the highly theoretical aspects we learn about in class. The trip was immensely educational, challenging, and fascinating. I learned so much from these three days that by the end of it, there were countless thoughts about the ICC and international justice in general floating around in my brain, and I could hardly contain them. I’m not really sure if this will interest anyone other than myself, but I’m going to write a couple of blog posts based on my experiences and based on the things I’ve learnt and seen firsthand. Who knows - perhaps it will someday help other interested students gain a different perspective on the work of the ICC.

Credit: iccnow.org

Our first meeting was with the Coalition for the ICC (CICC), a NGO created in 1995 to support and improve the work of the ICC, and ensure that it is fair, effective, and independent. The coalition has a membership of over 2,500 NGOs who are interested in the work of the ICC in some capacity. The CICC focuses on disseminating information about the Court’s activities, raising awareness of its work, coordinating civil society efforts regarding the ICC, providing NGOs with access to negotiations and a role in investigations & prosecution, promoting ratification of the Rome Statute and the implementation of ICC legislation, monitoring the activities of the Court, and more generally working to make the ICC more fair and efficient. The CICC has the target of universal ratification - which means that one if its major campaigns focuses on encouraging countries around the world to sign the Rome Statute and support the ICC. Another aspect of the CICC’s work I found to be very beneficial was their work regarding communications and outreach. The presenter mentioned that the ICC does not do a very good job of communicating with victims and people on the ground and helping them understand the importance of the ICC; this ignorance of the ICC’s work can result in the lack of support for the Court on the ground. The CICC’s work in remedying this can prove to be very effective.

Although the CICC tries not to take a strong opinion on any issue and strives to remain a neutral body and a forum for discussion, one very controversial point was brought up. When asked, the presenter said that it was actually good that some major countries like the US and China are not parties to the Rome Statute, and do not support the ICC. He said that in its most formative and sensitive years, the Court has mostly enjoyed widespread support from its state parties, who are largely countries who genuinely want to further the work of the ICC. If the U.S. and China, for example, had become state parties to the ICC, the dynamics would have changed completely. These countries might not have supported the ICC to such an extent, and the Court might have experienced much more opposition and division from within. So the fact that some of the world’s superpowers have not supported the ICC has potentially helped its early development. The important thing, he said, was not to have all states sign the Rome Statute, but to have all states cooperate with the ICC regardless. I found this a fascinating - and perhaps contradictory viewpoint, for at the same time the CICC is working towards universal ratification.

Another interesting point was that there is a huge division between the perceptions of officials and governments and those of civil society regarding the ICC. Governments are often against the ICC, while civil society tends to understand that the ICC is ultimately striving to help people on the ground. Governments feel that the ICC is anti-Africa - while civil society sees the ICC as pro-Africa, as it is attempting to help the African people. Though he presented this as a clear dichotomy, I wonder whether portions of civil society has a critical stance as well - which I imagine some NGOs in areas affected by the ICC’s work do. 

Another fascinating point of discussion was the treatment of those convicted by the ICC — the “supervillains.” Since the case of Thomas Lubanga is the first case to take place at the ICC, there is no precedent as of yet regarding what is to be done with these supervillains after they are found guilty. The assumption is that these super-criminals will be imprisoned in European countries, since the legal structures in developing countries likely do not meet the necessary international standards. One controversial point was the rehabilitation of these so-called supervillains — if we rehabilitate regular child soldiers, why not these criminals as well? The answer was, of course, a laugh and a shake of the head - we can’t rehabilitate supervillains, because they are beyond that point. They are responsible for the conflict, while child soliders and other civilians are victims, caught in war without a choice.

The final point was the participation of victims in the proceedings. Victims do not testify - only witnesses do, at the ICC. Victims remain neutral third parties. But what is exciting is that the ICC is beginning to provide for the extensive participation of witnesses in the trial. Our presenter spoke about how by being involved intimately in the trials and seeing perpetrators being brought to justice has allowed victims to feel a genuine sense of connection to the Court’s work, and it gives them a feeling of contentment to see that something is being done to address the heinous crimes they have experienced. The victims feel validated not by monetary reparations but just by being able to take part in the proceedings and to see justice being done. The concern though is the safety of the witnesses, and the awareness amongst victims of their rights. He also mentioned something I’m very interested in — that the Court is working towards an innovative Victims Trust Fund. I think it’s absolutely vital that the ICC, in order to truly foster justice, must participate in the rehabilitation of victims and help them reintegrate into society. It’s important that the ICC get involved in the communities it is trying to assist, and directly begin helping the victims of crimes by providing them with more than a vague sense of justice - but a concrete sense that they are being cared for and assisted.

I learned so much from the CICC presentation and was very impressed by the breadth of the CICC’s work. I was fascinated by not only how much has been done, but how much there is left to be done. The work of the CICC is vital in ensuring that the Court is operating effectively and being accountable, especially in the light of so many recent controversial indictments by the ICC. There is so much the ICC can improve on, and I think the CICC has the power to make the Court stop and listen. That power is tremendous, and it needs to be used wisely - it is being used well, and I hope this critical approach to the ICC will continue on.