DISCUSSION

 GLOBAL MOVEMENT FOR A CULTURE OF PEACE

Home page and navigation bar

L'accueil et la barre de navigation

La recepción y la barra de navegación

You are invited to take part in any of the discussion questions. To write a reply or change language, you must be registered (click on "Register" below) and then log in.

Vous êtes invité à participer aux forums ci-dessous. Avant d'écrire, vous devez vous enregistrer (cliquez ci-dessous) et ensuite inscrivez vous.

Usted está invitado a participar de los forums que se encuentran aquí debajo. Antes de escribir, debe registrarse (clickear abajo) y entonces conectar..

» Welcome Guest

» Log In :: Register :: Search :: Help

» Bienvenue Invité

» Inscrire :: Enregistrer :: Rechercher :: Aide

» Bienvenido Invitado

» Conectar :: Registro :: Búsqueda :: Ayuda


 

[ Track this question :: Email this question :: Print this question ]
Question: Could use of the ICC help prevent future wars? CPNN article: The ICC, the Other Option
CPNN Administrator
Posted: Dec. 31 1999,17:00
This discussion question applies to the following articles:

The ICC, the Other Option
Latin American states use Security Council seats to show strong support for the International Criminal Court and international justice
Back to top
Profile PM 
Kgale
Posted: April 25 2003,07:38
It is always preferable to use law, rather than war to solve disputes.  The failure of the USA to approve of the international criminal court means that we, the USA, move directly to a violent solution when dealing with those who disobey interational law--such as Osama Bin Laden, or Sadaam Hussein.  
Some of our actions from the past and even present are questionable under international rules.
It is regrettable that we choose military solutions.
Back to top
Profile PM 
mediate
Posted: April 26 2003,10:48
I have read the short piece written by Janet Hudgins, The ICC: the other option, in which she suggests that Saddam Hussein and co could be tried by the ICC.

If anyone thinks that police, lawyers, judges, punishment and prisons can make a significant contribution to cultures of peace, they should ask themselves why the USA is not a more peaceful society. After all, the USA has 2 million people serving prison sentences. Unfortunately, on any set of culture of peace indicators, the USA scores very low.

Is Iraq a signatory to the ICC? If not, perhaps Janet could explain how the ICC could have jurisdiction over Saddam.
I do not believe that the ICC will play a role in preventing future wars. Their is not much evidence that such tribunals have a preventative effect at all on the behaviour of people who often are living in dimensions of life where the logic of codes of behaviour that most people in the world adhere to have been abandoned.
I can think of several such people. For example, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. Does anyone really think that he sits around thinking: Gee, I had better not do this, they might charge me in the ICC!
There are many assumptions about the ICC and the ad hoc tribunals (eg Ruwanda and Former Yugoslavia) which it would be unwise not to keep questioning.
One of these assumptions is that judgements of the ICC or the tribunals produce justice.  A second is that punishment is the appropriate response (instead of, for example, some kind of reparation). A third assumption is that the punishment meeted out should be designed in terms of prison sentences.
Not many people know that the tribunal for the former Yugoslavia has used about US$600 million, has less than 150 indictees (that we know of) - that's 4 million dollars per indictee - and has delivered approximately 20 judgements (some of them involving more than one indictee). One of the convicted, a mid level military officer, was sentenced to a term in prison and sent to Norway to serve that term. He was released several years before the term ended. Although it is not pleasant to be confined and to be away from family and friends, Norwegian prisons resemble Holiday Inn rooms compared with prisons in many other countries.
To place too much hope in the ability of the ICC to make a substantial contribution to sustainable peace and justice would be betting on the wrong horse.
This is not to say that the ICC should not exist. Unfortunately we do need judges and prisons, I think. But what would be much more useful and cost effective would be to have a permanent and well funded UN capacity for conflict management and reconciliation, which could have both a preventative and healing effect.
Lawyers, Judges, Police, Soldiers and Prisons have their role, but are by no means the most important or effective actors in developing cultures of peace.
Graham Dyson
Director
Centre for Peacebuilding and Conflict Management, Norway
Back to top
Profile PM 
Janet
Posted: April 28 2003,08:54
Quote (mediate @ April 26 2003,10:48)
I have read the short piece written by Janet Hudgins, The ICC: the other option, in which she suggests that Saddam Hussein and co could be tried by the ICC.

If anyone thinks that police, lawyers, judges, punishment and prisons can make a significant contribution to cultures of peace, they should ask themselves why the USA is not a more peaceful society. After all, the USA has 2 million people serving prison sentences. Unfortunately, on any set of culture of peace indicators, the USA scores very low.

Is Iraq a signatory to the ICC? If not, perhaps Janet could explain how the ICC could have jurisdiction over Saddam.
I do not believe that the ICC will play a role in preventing future wars. Their is not much evidence that such tribunals have a preventative effect at all on the behaviour of people who often are living in dimensions of life where the logic of codes of behaviour that most people in the world adhere to have been abandoned.
I can think of several such people. For example, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. Does anyone really think that he sits around thinking: Gee, I had better not do this, they might charge me in the ICC!
There are many assumptions about the ICC and the ad hoc tribunals (eg Ruwanda and Former Yugoslavia) which it would be unwise not to keep questioning.
One of these assumptions is that judgements of the ICC or the tribunals produce justice.  A second is that punishment is the appropriate response (instead of, for example, some kind of reparation). A third assumption is that the punishment meeted out should be designed in terms of prison sentences.
Not many people know that the tribunal for the former Yugoslavia has used about US$600 million, has less than 150 indictees (that we know of) - that's 4 million dollars per indictee - and has delivered approximately 20 judgements (some of them involving more than one indictee). One of the convicted, a mid level military officer, was sentenced to a term in prison and sent to Norway to serve that term. He was released several years before the term ended. Although it is not pleasant to be confined and to be away from family and friends, Norwegian prisons resemble Holiday Inn rooms compared with prisons in many other countries.
To place too much hope in the ability of the ICC to make a substantial contribution to sustainable peace and justice would be betting on the wrong horse.
This is not to say that the ICC should not exist. Unfortunately we do need judges and prisons, I think. But what would be much more useful and cost effective would be to have a permanent and well funded UN capacity for conflict management and reconciliation, which could have both a preventative and healing effect.
Lawyers, Judges, Police, Soldiers and Prisons have their role, but are by no means the most important or effective actors in developing cultures of peace.
Graham Dyson
Director
Centre for Peacebuilding and Conflict Management, Norway

Re: The ICC, The Other Option and Graham Dyson’s post of 26 April 2003

Your premise that not only the ICC, but all organs of law and order are of little value is startling, but the more so since you don’t offer an alternative. Nonetheless, I want to address some of your points.

Your question as to how the ICC could try Saddam Hussein since Iraq is not a signatory is included in my piece: the UN Security Council would have to refer the case. The risk is that the US would use its veto.

Then, you suggest that punishment is inappropriate, rather "some kind of reparation." Hypothetically, would Hussein apologize or offer compensation? And then would you allow him to drive away?

You make a brief mention of "developing the cultures of peace." Is this likely to be a timely instrument, or apt, for such as Hussein?

And, your numbers regarding the Milosevic trial are very impressive: 150 indictees, 20 judgements. But, is there any comparison between the cost of peace and the cost of war? $600 million versus $80 billion—the published cost for the war in Iraq—plus the lives and property that have been horribly mutilated and completely destroyed?

I’m at a loss to understand your position, but open to discussion.  

Janet Hudgins
Vancouver, Canada
Back to top
Profile PM 
mediate
Posted: April 28 2003,09:20
Janet, the topic of this discussion is could the use of the ICC prevent future wars? My comment is written to support my view that the ICC and its procedures will have little effect on people like Saddam. I also question what effect reactive, rights based processes have on peacebuilding generally, and am concerned that academics and commentators seem to have too much faith in what courts and punishment can offer in terms of sustainable justice.
Nowhere do I suggest that the alternative to rights based processes is violence and force, and I am well aware that conflict management and peacebuilding through war and violence is inappropriate and too expensive.
I believe that the focus should be on proactive interest based processes, and that, post violence, we should look towards the experiences of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission and similar processes if we really want to invest in sustainable reconciliation and justice.
In order to prevent future wars, which is the topic of this discussion, we need to allocate adequate resources to improving international capacities, competencies and motivation to negotiate and implement conflict management processes which will more likely lead to non violent solutions to problems than conflicts.
The fact that the main negotiators from the powerful members of the international community failed to find a process which was an alternative to war is either a result of dark intentions (which there is a case for) or a competence failure - or a combination (most likely).
Operating from the premise that the ICC will be of significant help to prevent future wars is dangerous because it might distract attention and resources from more useful processes than those used by the ICC.
This realisation is being made by communities all over the western world today, who have realised that lawyers and judges and legal processes do not necessarily solve their problems. ADR processes are becoming more usual, and there is more and more focus on restorative justice processes.
So, yes there are alternatives to violence and courts. These alternatives are much more conducive to the development of cultures of peace and prevention of war.
I hope the above makes my point clearer.
Oh, one last point. I am a lawyer myself.
Graham Dyson
Back to top
Profile PM 
Joe
Posted: April 28 2003,11:30
I've been following this dialogue, and I have to agree that the ICC is not the only international mechanism for peace. I think an effective solution for Iraq (which is a very special case) would have to involve a large number of international NGOs coordinated by a strong UN.

Extraditing Saddam to the ICC would be insufficient, in itself. But, by combining a public trial with UN monitors and a free election, the international community could have supported Iraqi self-determination and thwarted US jingoism.

If, indeed, it is true that Iraqis lack a national justice system, that makes the involvement of the ICC crucial as part of the peace process. I think it is fairly obvious that the US is less interested in capturing Saddam and more involved in ensuring a foothold in the new Iraq infrastructure. I think if Saddam or Osama or any other bogey men are captured at all, it will be right before an election and just in time to be summarily executed in some mass-televised celebration of the death penalty. Therefore, the ICC and other international human rights bodies should be strengthened.

Obviously Iraq is a unique case. But, why can’t the process of peace building be dealt with by a plurality of democratic international organizations?
Back to top
Profile PM 
Janet
Posted: April 28 2003,13:32
Quote (Joe @ April 28 2003,11:30)
I've been following this dialogue, and I have to agree that the ICC is not the only international mechanism for peace. I think an effective solution for Iraq (which is a very special case) would have to involve a large number of international NGOs coordinated by a strong UN.

Extraditing Saddam to the ICC would be insufficient, in itself. But, by combining a public trial with UN monitors and a free election, the international community could have supported Iraqi self-determination and thwarted US jingoism.

If, indeed, it is true that Iraqis lack a national justice system, that makes the involvement of the ICC crucial as part of the peace process. I think it is fairly obvious that the US is less interested in capturing Saddam and more involved in ensuring a foothold in the new Iraq infrastructure. I think if Saddam or Osama or any other bogey men are captured at all, it will be right before an election and just in time to be summarily executed in some mass-televised celebration of the death penalty. Therefore, the ICC and other international human rights bodies should be strengthened.

Obviously Iraq is a unique case. But, why can’t the process of peace building be dealt with by a plurality of democratic international organizations?

I'm interested in your idea regarding a large number of NGOs, and a plurality of democratic int'l organizations coordinated by the UN.
Could you broaden on this? Which of the NGOs, or even the kinds of groups there are: Human Rights, Legal, Int'l Relations . . . and how would they work with the ICC?
Thanks
Janet Hudgins
Back to top
Profile PM 
Joe
Posted: April 28 2003,17:54
Quote
Which of the NGOs, or even the kinds of groups there are: Human Rights, Legal, Int'l Relations . . . and how would they work with the ICC?


Well, I didn't have anything too specific in mind. I was thinking of the hundreds of NGOs commonly referred to as the "international human rights regime."

In terms of my idea...international bodies like the IMF and World Bank actually try countries in secret tribunals. So, why can't the good guys turn this around? Conceptually, I think progressive groups could coordinate global peace campaigns based around publicized human rights trials similar to what occurs in the ICC. Not trials of countries, but of the culture of war itself (as manifested in human rights crimes and oppression). Of course, this still raises serious issues of state sovereignty.

So, I must defer the question to those who know more about the structure of these groups: would it be possible to centralize international human rights organizations on a level that would provide a cohesive, transnational peace movement?

Perhaps those who have worked on the Culture of Peace program in the UN could comment on this?
Back to top
Profile PM 
Tony Dominski
Posted: April 29 2003,12:13
Quote (CPNN Administrator @ April 22 2003,19:23)
Readers are invited to comment on this question and on this article.

The discussion about the ICC's potential role in Iraq will be illuminated by looking at the Restorative Justice website at Restorative Justice.  I would ask how would a tribunal and punishment improve prospects for Iraq's future?  If Sadam tortured, raped and pillaged, what just would putting him jail restore?  Wouldn't it be far more productive to publicize the abuses, encourage apolgies and forgiveness, recompense the victims,  and create instiutions to prevent further abuses?
Back to top
Profile PM 
Janet
Posted: April 30 2003,09:18
It would be useful to think some proposals through as much as possible. For instance: If a TRC were to be part of the ICC.

I think the Truth and Reconcilitiation Commissions were a combination of the TRC and the SA justice system. Botha, for one, refused to seek amnesty (or even acknowledge its legitimacy), and others were refused amnesty and so were subject to prosecution.

The tyrants of the world are not likely to seek amnesty and if they did, most certainly would be refused. So, regardless of the TRC, they would still be tried by an international court. Having found the tyrant guilty, would the court impose an apology and reparation? And Restorative Justice talks about changing the behaviour of the accused. Would the ICC take that on?

Consideration of the many cultures and religions all different from the South African model. Many hand down retribution as a family heirloom and are not accustomed to apologies. Would a foreign body attempt to get acceptance for a TRC, probably in a another country?

The victims would have to appear and the scale of Hussein's violations is such that hearing from all the victims would take years. Protection might be necessary for the accused and the victims as hearings would be broadcast; TRC makes provision for publication. Housing for such a hearing would be enormous.


Janet
Back to top
Profile PM 
Tony Dominski
Posted: May 03 2003,06:47
Janet, Thanks for your very practical comments on the difficulties of carrying out restorative justice including cultural factors. Your reply sparked a vision:  As you pointed out, it would take huge amounts of resources to implement the restorative justice in Iraq or anywhere-- the kinds of resources that the worldwide military complex uses today.   What if the military were gradually transformed into mostly a resorative justice enterprise with comparable funding?  Bomb and soliders would gradually be replaced by hearings, tv publicity, auditors, lawyers, urban and ecological reconstruction, reparation to victims, health care etc. etc.  As the hardware for killing was replaced by the software for justice, the marginal value of each dollar spent on national security would increase.  And over time the total dollars spend would need to be less as the world became more peaceful.  Thus, the selling point is getting more security and justice for each dollar  spent.  Restorative justice would have to be seen as patriotic duty and not just the darling of peaceniks.  This is and enormous PR opportunity.   I'd wager that not 1% of the worlds people have heard of the restorative justice and the potential benefits as compared with conventional "peacekeeping" with soldiers.  Should we hire a Madison Avenue firm?

NOTE TO READERS:  If this discussion becomes any longer, it will spill over onto a second page, so you will need to click on the second page to follow its progress.

Edited by CPNN Administrator on May 03 2003,07:02
Back to top
Profile PM 
Janet Hudgins
Posted: Aug. 04 2003,12:01
There is a slight possibility that Saddam Hussein will be found alive, (I agree there is much room for discussion on this topic alone), and if so, what will Bush do with him? The Bush administration’s ambivalence toward the ICC or any foreign justice system will likely be reflected in the outcome; its adamant claim that prisoners in Guantanamo Bay will be tried by the American justice system is a strong clue as to how this might go. And, it’s a safe bet that the international community will have little to say about it.

I’ve been listening to knowledgeable people and there certainly is no consensus of opinion, there are just too many possibilities, and Bush has, well, frightening capabilities.

At the moment no court has proper jurisdiction to hear this, it would have to be created (as we discussed some months ago) and a court would have to have the will to try Hussein. Then decide if it was a domestic or war crimes case. And will it try Hussein and/or his administration?

Cambodia’s Special Khmer Rouge tribunals are an extant example of the difficulties posed by domestic trials of dictators—I can never find a satisfactory word—and Amnesty Int’l points them up and suggests that the UN General Assembly specify and set the standard:
-an independent and impartial prosecutor to determine whether to seek an indictment solely on the basis of his or her own professional judgement
-an independent and impartial court applying all international fair trial standards
-effective witness protection
-any judicial mechanism established under UN auspices to be so conceived that it will substantially contribute to the longer-term strengthening of Cambodia's national capacity to try perpetrators of human rights abuses in its courts.

I"ll rephrase the question: what should Bush do with Hussein and should the UN be invited into the process?

Janet Hudgins
Vancouver, Canada
Back to top
Profile PM 
Gordon Soderberg
Posted: Jan. 02 2005,13:19
To change the United States culture of war to a culture of peace we need to hear from our Veterans who understand the true costs of war. We need to hear from them daily. I watch Democracy Now and often wonder where are the voices of veterans who have chosen to promote peace as the ultimate defence of our country.

We, having dutifully  served our nation, do hereby affirm our greater responsibility to  serve the cause of world peace. To this end we will work, with others

(a) Toward  increasing public awareness of the costs of war.
(b) To restrain our government from intervening, overtly and covertly,  in the internal affairs of other nations 
© To end the arms race and to reduce and eventually eliminate  nuclear weapons
(d) To seek justice for veterans and victims of war
(e) To abolish war as an instrument of national policy.

To achieve these goals, members of Veterans For Peace pledge to use non-violent means and to maintain an organization that is both democratic and open with the understanding that all members are trusted to act in the best interests of the group for the larger purpose of world peace.

We urge all people who share this vision to join us.

http://www.veteransforpeace.org

I would recommend that veterans and non veterans join the Veterans For Peace and foster the message of peace.

National media is the only way to get the word out. We all know that corporate news will not give us the time of day much less equal time on issues of war, national security, and world peace. In order to foster this message, we sould start by producing community access television show(s) that are moderated by members of Veterans For Peace.

These shows can be produced where there are community access television stations.

http://www.openchannel.se/cat/linksus.htm
Back to top
Profile PM 
12 replies since April 22 2003,19:23 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track this question :: Email this question :: Print this question ]