Justice for all

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.

This Friday I wanted to highlight an amazing project which recently won the 2009 Echoing Green Fellowship. Accountability Counsel is an organization aiming to partner with communities harmed by international finance and development projects in order to hold international institutions and corporations accountable, and develop new accountability systems where none exist.

Communities around the world have been harmed by multinational corporations, which have displaced people and taken their land, dumped toxic chemicals and waste in bodies of water, and threatened those who have dared to challenge such injustices. This is nothing new. However what surprised me most is that no other organization existed to assist communities - that often lack the resources to pursue their cases through the legal system - in seeking justice for the wrongs they have experienced.

Accountability Counsel conducts trainings at the grassroots level regarding accountability tools and helps communities implement these tools, including litigation. The organization helps communities seek redress for the harm they have experienced at the hands of international corporations.

The project is spearheaded by Natalie Bridgeman, an inspiring young attorney who has worked on environmental and human rights issues, with a focus on development accountability. She is a graduate of Cornell University where she was a Udall Scholar, and of UCLA School of Law’s Program in Public Interest Law and Policy where she was Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs. She has work experience with NGOs on advocacy campaigns, as a litigator at a large law firm, and as an accountability consultant.

About her inspiration, she says:

“While there, I traveled to the BioBio River where the indigenous Mapuche were protesting the illegal construction of a large series of hydroelectric dams on the River, which were displacing their villages and inundating their land. I stood a few feet away while the police tear gassed the eighty-year-old Mapuche women who were fighting for their land. I learned that the project was financed by an institution that used US taxpayer money – that my country was funding this injustice. They implored me to help. There was no turning back from development accountability work after that.”

Read more about Natalie’s project here!

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.

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!