Justice for all

I’m a graduating senior. June 2010. Those words hang ominously in the air, haunting me, frightening me, and at the same time, exhilarating me. Thankfully, I’ve managed to secure some exciting opportunities for post-graduation despite the lackluster economy, and I’m grateful to the universe for that. Yet, I’m finding - for the first time - the need to balance idealism and realism.

It’s difficult. I’m young, so I want to head off to Africa and pursue my lofty idealism, putting it into action somehow. But the realities are that I want to gain practical experience in litigation - which is where I’d like to end up after some time. The realities are that I have to study for the LSAT, because I want to be a lawyer. The realities are that going abroad for a long time now might not be the most practical option.

But just because something is a “reality” doesn’t mean it’s not exciting and full of passion. It is!

The field of “development” is extremely broad. You can work on education, health, microfinance, or human rights. But I can’t do all that. After taking a class this quarter on aid and development, I realize that most development projects don’t actually succeed. It’s muted my idealism quite a bit. Even if I do go abroad, most likely my work there wouldn’t leave behind much of an impact. I’d learn and gain a cross-cultural understanding, sure, but is that enough?

That’s why I’m choosing something more specific - human rights law. Law is still viewed as a monstrous creation, particularly in western countries where we are constantly drowning in the threat of lawsuits. Indeed, this dark cloud has prevented so many from living their lives. But I want my career to show that law can be transformative, positive, and empowering. That lawyers aren’t all greedy, but that the law can be used to advance social justice and truly help communities solve their problems. That the law can empower women to seek redress for gender based violence - and that it allows them to speak out where they would have been silent before. I want to use the law to bring justice to communities affected by torture, rights violations, environmental abuses, and discrimination. In particular, I want to focus on legal systems of developing countries - which are often in dire need of reform and capacity-building.

The good thing about being a senior is that it really forces you to distill. I have had to look at my diverse range of interests and really draw out what I ultimately want to do. The days are running out - and I have to make a decision. Through this process, I’ve found the idea of a career in impact litigation of some sort followed by broader reform of legal systems to be highly compelling. And far more so than “development” work, in which you can never be sure of success. It seems more fulfilling to look a client in the eye and say “We’ve done it!” than almost anything else. And after years of working on abstract things like communications or research, I want that badly. I want to work with individuals, hear their stories, and work on their cases. Change - but incremental, concrete, tangible change.

But there are more realities. The reality is that this field of human rights law - particularly justice reform and access to justice issues - does not have any clear career path, per se. The reality is that I’ll have to make it up as I go along. And maybe I’ll fail or falter. But perhaps, also, this reality will be the most fulfilling one.

(A quick note: Starting now, I’m challenging myself to write something every day that isn’t related to my thesis or my internship. This could be a blog post here, a blog post for another online outlet, a poem, or a personal journal entry. Regardless of what it is, I want to get back into writing! That also means that you’ll be seeing more posts here!

Another note: I’m sorry if this post is extremely cryptic. I’ll let you know what I’m up to as soon as I make a decision!)

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.

For much of my life, I’ve been utterly confused. I’ve considered quite possibly every career other than science or medicine: Journalism, i-banking, consulting, public relations, marketing, environmental science, computer science, law, entrepreneurship, nonprofits, and probably more that I’m missing.

But this year, I think I’ve finally settled on something – something that’s been lurking for a while beneath the surface, something that’s just been sitting under my nose, and now seems bafflingly obvious from the start. I’ve always been interested in law, but now I’ve become fascinated by international law, human rights, and social entrepreneurship. I see no reason why law can’t be innovative and why we cant employ exciting new methods and practices to combat problems that have been around for years – torture, domestic violence, human rights violations, genocide. But if I didn’t get to somehow do something innovative in my career, I would, bottom line, be happy to be working in law.

Finally, after so many years of being a confused liberal arts major, after years of futile exploring – I think I’ve stumbled upon something that really inspires me, urges me to jump in and get involved. That feeling as if a fire has been lit beneath you – as if you can’t rest until something has been done – that feeling, vaguely uncertain yet frighteningly pressing – it must be passion. I feel unabashedly idealistic in saying that I’m passionate about these principles we’ve learned about so fervently in our political science classes – justice, equality, freedom. The pursuit of this can take up lifetimes, but it’s something I think is worth fighting for – maybe the only thing ever worth fighting for.

I don’t think I’ve been this passionate about any “career path” before. But now that I’ve uncovered this gem, how can I actually make it happen? To be honest, I’m worried. I’d like to believe that if you do what you love, everything else will follow…but somehow I can’t help but doubt. I’m afraid of thinking differently and from diverging from the set path. When all my fellow economics majors are joining investment banks and consulting firms, when my pre-professional friends are preparing to immediately enter medical or law school upon graduation – it’s easy to feel left behind in the stampede. Am I doing the right thing in following my interests? Or should I succumb to the pressures and follow along with societal convention, doing something a bit more traditional?

Doubts inevitably creep in: can you actually make a ‘career’ out of working in nonprofits or government agencies, and will I ever get paid what I actually want? I may be a part of Gen Y, and I may think I can accomplish everything I love– but at the same time, I crave stability and comfort. I’m not sure if I can be a starving artist, even if I’m doing what I love. I’m a student now and don’t need to be rich – but eventually I’m going to have a family and may not be able to afford working for a nonprofit. And if I go to law school, which I really really want to do, how will I ever pay back those loans unless I work in corporate law for a while?

You know, where does the balance lie between following your passions and doing something practical? How do I draw the line between going for it and simply doing what I love, versus trying to utilize my skills in a safer, better paying private sector job? I know Penelope Trunk says you shouldn’t try to do what you love, but do what you are. But the truth is, when it comes down to applying for jobs – there’s certain ones that I get incredibly excited about, and certain ones that I simply can’t be inspired by. I don’t want to go to work every day feeling that uninspired. People say you can follow your passions on the side, but really that’s incredibly difficult – who do you know who really spends time writing novels on the side, or running a charity, or developing websites? Very few. I just see middle aged men and women burnt out from their work, and especially from doing something they really don’t love. I’d like to avoid turning into that, myself. And now that I’ve actually found something I’m passionate about, settling for anything less seems like cheating myself; lying about the very essence of who I am.

When I stumble upon these quandaries, I sometimes just read about students like myself and I fall in love with human rights law all over again. And I try to tell myself – if they can do what they love, there’s really no reason why I can’t.

But sometimes even inspiration just isn’t enough to sweep away all the doubts, and I’m left confused, tossing and turning in my sleep and wishing for the right answer.

What do you think? Do what you love, or just try to make a living and make money? Leave a comment & let me know!

Wow. So in a very exciting development, the Palestinian authority and others have requested the ICC to investigate possible war crimes that have been committed in Gaza in the most recent Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo, is going to consider the investigation - especially because last week, the Palestinian Authority accepted the jurisdiction of the ICC.

Now, this raises some very fascinating questions for international law. First, does the Palestinian Authority even have legal power to recognize the ICC? The ICC charter includes “sovereign states” — and the Palestinian Authority may or may not be recognized as a “sovereign state.” If it’s not a state, can the Palestinian Authority even be considered a member of the ICC charter? Since Israel has not signed on to the Rome Statute and does not recognize the ICC, the only avenue for the ICC to get involved is through the Palestinian Authority.

If this complex, and controversial legal (and nationalist) quandary is solved, the ICC will have to genuinely consider the 210 requests from various organizations and individuals. Groups like Amnesty International have accused Israel of violence against civilians and the illegal use of phosphorus shells. At the same time, groups like Human Rights Watch have asked the ICC to investigate “Hamas’ rocket attacks on Israeli towns and its alleged use of Palestinian civilians as human shields.”

One positive implication of this is that the ICC will be venturing out of Africa. The ICC has been criticized of becoming the “International Criminal Court of Africa” and of failing to address issues occurring elsewhere in the world. This would be a first step out of Africanization of the court, and could potentially increase its credibility in the future. What I wonder, though, is whether the ICC’s involvement will only heighten pressure on both sides and exacerbate the conflict. It seems to me that the ICC doesn’t have the best record of peacekeeping, and this sort of investigation could cause anger, violence, and conflict to simply intensify. Such an explosive issue has to be addressed very carefully, and I simply hope the ICC is capable of approaching it with the caution it deserves.