Thanks to Running Chicken, I found an excellent new article by Hunjoon Kim and Kathryn Sikkink: Explaining the Deterrence Effect of Human Rights Prosecutions for Transitional Countries. The article basically concludes that:

We find that human rights prosecutions after transition lead to improvements in human rights protection, and that human rights prosecutions have a deterrence impact beyond the confines of the single country. We also explore the mechanisms through which prosecutions lead to improvements in human rights. We argue that impact of prosecutions is the result of both normative pressures and material punishment and provide support for this argument with a comparison of the impact of prosecutions and truth commissions, which do not involve material punishment.

If the article’s findings are correct and the statistical methodology is sound, then this is a great finding and can really help international justice move forward more confidently in the future. I am especially impressed by the finding that the normative impact of prosecutions has actually resulted in deterrence, since many have argued that international justice has not been communicated well on the ground, thus resulting in little impact on deterrence. More quantitative studies should be done on this particular question to further confirm these conclusions.

One of the questions that I had when I first read this was whether there would be a difference between post-conflict transitional justice and justice during conflict - such as the intervention of the ICC. Certainly, post-conflict transitional justice is often undertaken by regimes that are willing to prosecute members of a previous regime, and it would be understandable for those countries to ultimately have a better human rights record. However, the same cannot be said for international bodies undertaking prosecutions during a conflict, as indicted war criminals could simply exacerbate repression and continue to flout international law.

However, they addressed these questions as well, finding that prosecutions under civil wars do not have a different impact on repression than those in peace; indeed, prosecutions during civil wars may even lead to greater improvements on human rights records than prosecutions during peacetime. This is an incredible and truly groundbreaking finding, because it has applied statistical methods to the peace v. justice argument that has thus far been based on mostly qualitative case studies.

Indeed, I do think that many people are coming to the conclusion that the peace versus justice is a false dichotomy. While there was at first much backlash regarding cases in Uganda and Sudan, ultimately those who are indicted are responsible for massive human rights violations; while “peace” might depend on them temporarily, it would probably be best in the long-run if those responsible are simply taken out of the picture. I think the question now shouldn’t be whether we should wait to indict a war criminal or not, but should be about the enforcement of these arrest warrants. Faster and more efficient ways of apprehending war criminals would not only contribute to the deterrence effect, but it would also reduce the possibility of an indicted perpetrator continuing to wield power and exacerbate conflict at home.  Certainly, the challenges are numerous — but I really do think the next step should be to innovate better ways to arrest war criminals and gain international cooperation for their work, rather than to continue the debates about peace versus justice.

Recently, I wrote a post about the injustice of international justice – that war criminals are given decent living conditions and fair trials, while more petty criminals are denied the same. I ran across a very related argument in an excellent article: After Arusha: Gacaca Justice in Post-Genocide Rwanda by Alana Tiemessen. Here it is:

Local prisoner support for the ICTR is very low. The U.S.-based Internews Network has shown what are known as the “Arusha Tapes” in Rwandan prisons to give genocide suspects a view of what has been happening in the ICTR trials and to encourage debate on Rwanda’s own judicial process. Ironically, while the tapes are meant to generate support for the tribunal, they have had opposite effect on local prisoners. The reactions to the tapes have revealed concerns among the prisoners over the absence of the death penalty at the tribunal and the luxurious living conditions of the tribunal prisoners as compared to those of the Rwandan prisons. The issue of the death penalty is significant because it is used by the national courts in Rwanda but not at the international tribunal. One prisoner replied, “why is it that the tribunal gives them more lenient sentences than us, they are the ones who told us to kill on radio . . . how come we are paying the higher price?”

The objections and shock registered by the prisoners to the Arusha Tapes were reflected in their support of the Gacaca process as an appropriate and fair judicial process. Awareness and acceptance of the community courts is evidenced by the high and increasing number of confessions among the prisoners, numbering in the tens of thousands, and a willingness to provide testimony and evidence against other genocide suspects. (p. 62)

The above quote really highlights how those who are most responsible are often given luxurious situations in comparison to the rest of the perpetrators. However, the truth is that national justice sectors - especially in Rwanda - are simply not well equipped to try thousands of genocidiares in a relatively short time period. That is why more funding and assistance is necessary to immediately begin building up national justice sectors as well. If all the funding and attention goes to international tribunals, then national justice systems do not develop simultaneously as most people seem to hope - but simply continue to be underdeveloped and lack the resources needed to try massive numbers of perpetrators.

That’s why, in Rwanda, Gacaca seems to offer a promising alternative which requires much less funding since it is based at the community-level. However, Gacaca suffers from it’s own problems - most dangerously that it is fueled by the same ethnic tensions that resulted in the genocide, lacks due process and does not always provide ‘fair’ trials to the accused, and can result in another form of “victor’s justice.” This isn’t necessarily the most promising route to take in the long run, and the international community shouldn’t forget about national justice sectors while looking at alternative mechanisms like Gacaca.

Still, the idea of communities trying those responsible for the genocide and then reintegrating the perpetrators into their societies is indeed powerful - and can seem a more fair alternative to allowing perpetrators to languish indefinitely in national prisons. It is certainly a step forward, but is by no means a panacea.

Also, happy new year to all!

Charles Taylor Trial (Credit: BBC)

I just ran across this fascinating Time interview with Stephen Rapp, who was previously chief prosecutor for the Special Court for Sierra Leone (H/T Shelby Grossman). Rapp states:

The concern all of us had was that we were conducting justice in a comfortable courtroom with long trials and well-paid attorneys. Prisoners had single cells, and they had committed the worst crimes. A mile away in the local prison there were simply no resources. Cases can’t go forward, witnesses are lost, and people stay in detention for many years at a stretch. [If I was] to do it over, I would try to develop a court within the national system. That would be my preference. Maybe not a court that costs $30 million a year like the Special Court, but an appropriate court.

This is something I thought about while writing the post “Villains & Supervillains,” after my trip to The Hague with the ICC Student Network last year, but never fully articulated.

I understand that many of these “supervillians” - war criminals, genocidaires, leaders who have led crimes against humanity, are some of the worst perpetrators in that world. For that reason, they receive special attention, and they are given fair trials and adequate living conditions. They are allowed to represent themselves in court, and a great deal of attention is paid to their trials to ensure they are truly fair. This all makes complete sense, because their trials are, and should be, high profile and well publicized in order to draw attention to their horrific crimes and resulting punishments, and thereby contribute to ending the atmosphere of impunity worldwide. Without fair trials and without widespread publicity of these proceedings, there is no chance that the justice being done will deter future perpetrators (though the possibility of deterrence itself is arguable).

But the greater travesty and grosser injustice is the fact that we are pumping millions of dollars into international courts which have doubtful impacts, and are simultaneously completely ignoring the life-threatening conditions in the national justice systems of many developing countries. Isn’t this ironic? While war criminals are getting the royal treatment, everyday people - many of them poor - are arbitrarily detained in various African countries, often for stealing a piece of bread or for political reasons. In many African countries, torture continues to be widespread as an interrogative tool despite laws in the books prohibiting it.

In the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), 80% of prisoners are in pre-trial detention, and there is no law criminalizing torture. In Kenya, even petty offenders must wait an average of 5 years to have their case heard. In Kampala, Uganda, many prisons are overcrowded, often at 300% of capacity. And in Nigeria, women are held alongside men in prison, often leading to rape and sexual violence. In Zimbabwe, news reports have shown emaciated inmates starving to death from lack of food, often forced to catch and eat rats to survive.

The criminal justice systems of many developing countries are in far worse conditions than that of the U.S., and are arbitrary, unfair, and life-threatening. If the international community devoted one-tenth of the attention to this issue as they do to providing fair trials to supervillains, then many more innocent lives would be saved.

As the status quo stands, a guy who is responsible for the genocide of thousands gets a lawyer of his own and a fair trial, while the poor, innocent, arbitrarily detained are tortured and starve to death without ever having access to counsel. Is this fair, or just? I don’t think so. This doesn’t mean we should pay less attention to war criminals, but that we should work harder to ensure a fair trial to those who are not.

As I’m currently on Easter Break, I’ve been constantly traveling. Right now, I’m at Northwestern University, visiting friends, studying for final exams, as well as catching up on meetings and activities. It’s been an exciting time, but since I’ve been so busy I haven’t had much time to update and write here. Forgive me for being M.I.A. — but in the meantime, check out some of these links for the latest and greatest in human rights news and blogs:

1. To Africa, From New York: “No, I said I’d only waterboard if I HAD to, and then only for 20 minutes….”
   The Obama Administration released some previously top secret documents about tactics used by the CIA today, at the same time that he promised those who implemented these tactics immunity from prosecution
2. Change.org Humanitarian Relief blog: When Aid Becomes Morally Indefensible
   So do you ask for the food, know that most of it will be used to further the insidious aims of the regime that has driven the country into the ground, but hoping that at least a few hungry people will benefit - or do you ask for the aid to be withheld, hoping to cutoff one of the regime’s own lifelines, even if more people will go hungry?
3. Internet and Democracy blog: Connecting India: Why Elections Need The Web
   Despite India’s bewildering diversity of languages, customs and religions, technology is building a bridge to more robust civil society. I am heartened by the cacophanous and lively blogospheric debates about the elections, which now compete with the Indian MSM and party propaganda machines for attention…
4. UN Dispatch: Death and Destruction in Sri Lanka While Few Pay Attention
   For the past three months the Sri Lankan government has engaged in a military campaign against the Tamil separatists, believing that this offensive can deliver the once and final blow to the Tamil Tigers 25 year violent insurgency…According to a document leaked to the AP, the United Nations puts the civilian death toll at around 4,500 with 12,000 civilians wounded.  Five children a day are dying from starvation and diarrhea.
5. Change.org Humanitarian Relief Blog: Challenging the Western approach to advocacy
   If we genuinely want to get governments to respect the rights of citizens, then we need to inspire them to do so, rather than shaming them when they don’t.
6. On the Ground by Nicholas Kristof: Free Roxana
   Today Roxana Saberi, an Iranian-American from North Dakota working as a journalist in Iran, was sentenced to eight years in prison by the Iranian government. My heart aches for her and her family.
7. DPH: Vijay Mahajan speaks about new economics and micro-finance
   For the longest time there was only one bottom line and it was money. Then there was talk of a double bottom line, which meant monetary and social accountability. But now most leading corporations are trying to perform on a triple bottom line, namely profits, people and planet.
8. Mashable: How to use social media to champion international causes
   Essentially, your social networking profile makes you a public figure, and like Brangelina, you too can champion an international cause…If you’re a social media guru with an interest in international projects, below are a few ways you can contribute to humanitarian organizations.
9. Change.org Social Entrepreneurship blog: Plato and Brancusi on Branding and Responsible Media
   I wonder how much irresponsible media is actually symptomatic of an irresponsible worldview and irresponsible action which starts from the division of the world into the philanthropists and those to be helped? I wonder if the photos of fly-bitten, distended-bellied children are effect, not cause?
10. WSJ: Obama Can Make a Difference in Darfur
    The U.S. needs to lead the international community in presenting Sudanese regime officials with a choice. If they allow access to aid organizations, sideline their indicted president, and secure peace for Darfur and the South, then they will be offered a clear path toward normal relations with the U.S. and other coalition partners.

I recently ran across the University of California Berkeley Human Rights Center, which held a Mobile Challenge to invite projects and innovations utilizing cutting-edge mobile technology to aid human rights work. I immediately fell in love with this project because it’s something I strongly believe in: law and human rights working together can benefit so much from technology and innovation. Mobile technology has thus far been leveraged so successfully in the fields of banking (mobile banking), entrepreneurship (Grameen’s village phone ladies), global health, and agriculture (to help small-scale farmers gain market information) to name a few. Since people in the developing world have much easier access to cell phones than to computers, mobile technology has become a focal point for further development and innovation, and is playing a key role in bridging the international digital divide.

But I hadn’t heard much about how mobile technology is being implemented to monitor and end human rights abuses until I saw UCB Human Rights Center’s Mobile Challenge, which recognized the top 10 project ideas for doing just that. So naturally, I was excited. Let me highlight a few of the projects which I found exciting and potentially powerful (although all of them were):

IJCentral: A movement to support global rule of law - The ICC desperately needs the cooperation and support of the international community in order to succeed in its mission to end impunity. Many major countries like China, Russia, and the U.S. have not ratified the Rome Statute and thus do not support the ICC. Studies have shown that when people know more about the ICC, support for the Court increases. IJCentral thus aims to inform more people about the ICC by using geolocated mobile phone SMS text messages, Twitter, an IJCMap, and a website with a blog, IJC News, and an IJC Video gallery with ICC footage updated weekly and links to relevant information and NGOs. This is a unique project, and though I am not sure how much impact it can have on changing the policies of major countries, I would be interested in seeing how it could shape popular sentiment towards the ICC.

Face the change: This project aims to put a human face on global warming and include in the debate human rights problems resulting from natural disasters and forced migration. Face the Change will highlight the social - not just environmental - impact of climate change, and will empower poor and vulnerable communities to participate in national policy debates. The web-based platform will use mainly video and other multimedia to document this impact; those without Internet access can use SMS and multimedia messaging to report about impoverished communities who are threatened by the effects of climate change (e.g. rising seas, drought). I like this idea because climate change really does lack a human face; people feel like helping the environment isn’t necessary because the negative effects seem so far away. This project will show that the negative impact has already begun.

Freedom Fone: This project helps communities and individuals communicate with one another without the need for internet access. It provides personal information 24/7 by storing audio files in the Freedom Fone’s Content Management System, which is updated through a simple to use browser interface. Callers can navigate the audio clips for the information they want, and can access the information in their preferred language. Each person can contribute questions, content, and feedback by leaving voice messages through the interface; people can call in for free using toll free numbers, for instance. It seems almost like a wikipedia - on a phone! It seems like a simple idea that can prove to become highly popular and helpful.

Handheld Human Rights: This project provides a hub for groups documenting human rights abuses. It allows people - especially those who are experiencing or witnessing human rights violations - to submit data and information about these abuses from their mobiles. Abuses and alerts will be channeled through the hub and mapped, and this information will be raised to raise international awareness and support advocacy campaigns. Handheld Human Rights wants to make human rights data more accessible and more actionable. It is currently focused on the human rights abuses occurring in Burma, but I see potential to scale it up for situations around the world. This project is simple, yet has the potential to be effective.

But this begs the question: how much innovation is needed? The problems I saw with many of the other entries for this contest is that much of this has already been done, and some of the innovations didn’t seem to contribute anything significantly groundbreaking. Most of the ideas were focused on reporting human rights abuses/violations/problems as soon as possible using mobile technology so that reporters and the international community could view the information. But is this much constant innovation necessary, or do we already have ample technology and innovations that simply need to be properly implemented?  I asked my twitter buddies about this, and here are some of the responses I got:

@CarlosMic: We shouldn’t stop innovating, but we shouldn’t try to implement properly EVERY innov. Ppl should split the work
@ExpressPros: Innovation and action need to be better friends. Otherwise, great ideas don’t mean better work. They should.
@leslieforman yes, i think innovation=necessary, implementation=even harder!
@jamestodhunter It’s the implementation & achievement of adoption of an inventive idea that transforms it into a useful innovation.

My conclusion is that innovation for the sake of innovation is useless. Innovation is only necessary, and useful, if it is actually implemented. Technology is great, but new ideas go waste - even if they are amazing - if they aren’t marketed well, put into place, and really utilized to make a difference. So although I see constant social entrepreneurship and innovation contests everywhere these days, I think people need to keep this in mind: before you innovate, ask yourself whether this is really needed. Or if you can have the same impact by working to put in place or improve some pre-existing systems, technologies, products or ideas. Really dig deep. Because innovation for the sake of innovation - is worthless.

Photo credit: here and here