Sep
15
History Repeating
Filed Under Diplomacy & History | Leave a Comment
I visited the International Criminal Court in The Hague for my professional seminar in the Netherlands, inherently trying to compare it to the four previous visits, especially to the ones at the other international criminal tribunals such as the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia. Looking back and analyzing my expectations at the first visit and comparing them to my present perspective on things, after having been acquainted to all these institutions, I would definitely say that I embarked on this experience with a fairly more naïve approach on international justice.
I somehow expected these institutions that I had heard and read so much about to be the true peace wardens that I had pictured them to be. I might be biased by my inborn intolerance to injustice and impunity, but since we are boasting with leaving in a 21st century society, completely modern and technologically endowed, I had supposed that people were bettering not only the material side but also their social awareness and the relations between them. That after all the wars and man-induced disasters that humanity had to face we had learned our lesson and our keenness of not repeating the same mistakes was stronger. Regrettably, history always seems to be repeating itself.
I can say that I enjoyed the visit to the ICC. It provided the final piece of the puzzle, the one that I needed in order to have a broader view on how international judicial mechanisms work. Of how law is enforced and how relations between states work. I can truly say that, as rewarding as the readings about the ICTY, the ICC or ICJ may be for a person’s basic knowledge; the actual presence at their premises is a totally different and enriching experience.
Even though the answers that we get to some of our questions bear traceable elements of PR, it is still a valuable insight that we couldn’t have obtained otherwise; it is the simple fact of sitting face to face with people who are closer to the mechanisms that make the world as we know it work. That is something that no book or guideline will ever be able to provide.
Going beyond the broadly known information about the ICC and its activity, one of the interesting things that I found about it was related to the new elements that it has brought to international law. Including gender crimes against women on the list of codified crimes which are subjected to investigation and prosecution is a huge step for law, as it comes to fill a void that existed for too much time. As no innovation or brand new idea can succeed without previous opposition, the concept of “gender crimes” encountered serious opposition from the Arab states which are parties to the Rome Treaty. The use of the term “gender” instead of “sex”, because of its more broad meaning which encompasses both biological differences and social ones, was met with disdain by the conservative and patriarchic Arab societies in which the role of women is highly different from Western societies.
I had wondered whether their objections to the use of the term had led to a change or at least the creation of a system of reservations or provisions that would handle the different debatable aspects of the Rome Treaty. However, our fourth speaker cleared my doubts, as it seems that the law was adopted in its original form, which sets a milestone for international criminal law. This is indeed impressive and hopeful for the future of international justice. Just as interesting from the point of view of improving international judicial mechanisms is the fact that victims are represented at international level and, to some extent, they can even lodge appeals. Although cost-engaging, this brings people closer to the law and gives them the chance to voice their opinions in the right way to have them heard.
An interesting and endlessly debatable aspect of the ICC is certainly the reluctance of the United States in signing the Rome Treaty and becoming a state-party. What had shocked me at first, while reading about this issue, was the assertiveness of the US officials in claiming that “having our American citizens, especially the members of the armed forces, indicted and tried by other than American judges would be unacceptable”. On one hand, this would mean undermining the credibility and the impartiality of the Court (even more, after finding out from our speaker that the US has actively contributed to refining some aspects of the Rome Treaty) and on another hand, it would mean setting different standards for countries, according to their levels of power. Roughly, this could be interpreted as selective justice. Big powers get the easy way out and have a chance at deciding their own fate, while smaller ones are compelled to fully comply with the letter of the law.
What astonishes me is how the world’s biggest democracy can serenely make claims regarding the honesty of its people and of the fact that American citizens are unable to commit any crimes, yet fail to accept the jurisdiction of an International Court to the creation of which it had even contributed. The most dangerous thing for international law is this setting of a double-standard in judging people, when justice is supposed to be equally applicable to everyone.
I had been disappointed with the Romanian judicial system, which still has a long way to go until becoming fully unbiased by personal interests and immune to financial incentives. At times, I was outraged with the impunity of people just on terms of their financial or social power, which might be among the reasons that boosted my hopeful feelings regarding these international courts. I was anticipating that international law still had an unprejudiced seam. It seems however that the international environment is merely a large-scale representation of the low-scale injustices that take place everyday in most countries.
From this viewpoint, my overall impression of the ICC is that there is still a high degree of uncertainty floating in the air, partially nourished by the world powers unable to harmonize their interests. “Crime of aggression” is still a vaguely defined concept, due to political aspects and 80% of the communications from people trying to raise awareness regarding committed crimes fall outside jurisdiction because they “lack the gravity threshold that would trigger the court’s jurisdiction”.
I cannot help not thinking if it wouldn’t be preferable to prevent the committing of crimes in their incipient state rather than to desperately try to stop them when they start plaguing the society. How can someone establish a “threshold” for the gravity of the crimes? Do lives of human beings, pain and suffering fall within a measurement scale? And, more importantly, can we really know what is the borderline between “not enough” and “too much” when it comes to people’s lives?
On the train back from The Hague, I tried to reach at least a preliminary conclusion to what I had experienced in these two months with the Professional Seminar visits, to draw a line and sum up my moral victories and defeats, my expectations and my outcomes. I thought to what Dr.Suransky had told us, about the way we could do something to improve the present state of things. The only thing that I can think of is strongly people-related; the only force that we have to change anything for the future resides in people’s consciousness of their mistakes and on the honest desire of not reiterating them. I do believe that we have reached a crossroads in our world history, a moment in which we have to look deep inside ourselves and figure out what is the right path to follow, since the borderline between the good and the bad seems to have become barely noticeable.
Those were my last thoughts, on my way back from The Hague. With my iPod turned on, I couldn’t help not thinking whether I am too idealistic in my wish of doing something to change and better the world. Whether the world really wants to be changed. The only echo that I found for my thoughts was in a song that I deem just as idealistic as my perspective on life, and whose lyrics I wrote below. As I listened to it and watched The Hague drift away, I tried to provide myself with a conclusion that would serve as a closure for the first stage of my experience. I don’t know if I found it; what I know for sure is that I am going to keep hoping and acting for this world’s change for the better, even if I will only be able to induce an infinitesimally small change. It would be still a place to start. And that is the best I can possibly do.
“Gazing through the window at the world outside
Wondering will mother earth survive
Hoping that mankind will stop abusing her, sometime…
After all, there’s only just a few of us
And here we are still fighting for our lives
Watching all of history repeat itself, time after time…”
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Sep
15
I never used to like autumn. For as far back as I can remember, autumn always made me feel sad, always gave me a feeling of stillness and utter gloominess, similar to the one that the last chapter of a sad love story leaves on us. The autumn rain, its coldness and its dark clouds always reminded me of Emily Bronte’s “Withering Heights”, in which the two lovers Heathcliff and Cathy never end up together. I always picture that book in the dim colors of autumn…
Nevertheless…something changed last fall. Just like in one of Emily Bronte’s books, when the heroine falls in love with the man she used to despise, this past year I fell in love with autumn. It happened unexpectedly, there was no moment of revelation in which I said “I think I’m falling in love”, it just happened..like it usually happens in life.
I lived in London right next to Regent’s Park. Although I grew up next to Tineretului Park in Bucharest and I know it by heart…I can truly say that Regent’s Park is probably the most beautiful park I’ve ever seen. It doesn’t have statues, such as Vigeland Park in Oslo, it’s nor that famous, nor that full of life and people like other parks in the world. It is, however, the park in which I’ve witnessed…yes…witnessed…the most wonderful autumn ever. It’s in this park that I’ve for the first time in my entire life the urge of laying down on the yellow and reddish carpet of leaves, laid back and facing the sky, counting the clouds in the sweet drunkenness of the fresh autumn air.
It is Regent’s Park the place of my morning strolls, with a bag of nuts in one hand, for feeding the squirrels(that would just look at me with their big curious eyes) and with the camera in the other, taking photos of this amazingly beautiful nature. Every time I see Regent’s Park I feel incredibly lucky just for being there, for being able to lay my eyes on the fresh green grass, on the perfect yellow leaves, on the cloudy but beautiful sky…I truly feel and am blessed…
Regent’s Park is actually the park of my college in London. Webster University is part of Regent’s College, along with London School of Business and other 5 academic institutions, so I get to walk through Regent’s Park on my way to classes. During the breaks, I would just buy a sushi-set from the cafeteria and sit on the green grass to eat it, it was my little way of spoiling myself and enjoying a beautiful sunny day.
If you’ve ever seen ,,American Beauty”…being in Regent’s Park constantly reminds me of the scene with the plastic bag “dancing” in the air. And the words of the boy: “How can you stay mad, when there’s so much beauty in the world… Sometimes there’s so much beauty in the world I feel like I can’t take it, like my heart’s going to cave in…”.
And indeed…there is so much beauty in the world. You just have to keep your eyes wide open so that you can notice it. And try to have your heart open as well…
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Sep
15
Justice, Light Your Fire
Filed Under Diplomacy & History | Leave a Comment
Although brief, my visit to the International Court of Justice in The Hague was an informative and thought-provoking experience that left a strong impression on all of us, due to an interesting combination of factors. Having the impressive and breathtaking architecture of the Peace Palace as a background and benefiting from the experience and skillfulness in explanations of Mrs. Laurence Blairon, Secretary of the Court, who not only provided a scrupulously structured presentation but answered all our questions with patience and benevolence, we found out more about ICJ in one-hour than we could have in weeks of reading. The insight information and detailed explanations she provided are unlikely to be found in books and certainly not in the straightforward and practical way in which they were delivered to us during our one-hour discussion in the Red Room.
I would have to admit that the expectations that I had set for the visit to the ICJ were overtopped by the actual presentation, as we had been previously warned to expect more of a PR-oriented speech rather than one tailored to our questions and doubts. However, Mrs.Blairon’s presentation was attention-grabbing and concise, not lacking certain elements of PR but overall very clearly-cut and realistic.
One of the most interesting sides of ICJ’s actual activity has to do with the current pending cases, that our speaker provided insight details and comments on. Firstly, even before starting to work on the actual cases, the challenging issue for the ICJ judges’ activity consists in finding the right way of harmonizing Common Law with Roman Civil Law, given the strong mix of legal people coming from both Law Systems who must work together in solving cases. Moreover, the ICJ system does not resemble any other international judicial mechanism, since all judges partake in the decision-making and each one has to produce a 60 to 90 pages anonymous assessment of the case. The judge that directly handles the case must read all the drafts his colleagues provided before the first meeting, where a majority usually emerges in terms of opinions on the case and where a Draft Committee is elected. This is a fascinatingly complex procedure as, unlike other ruling mechanisms that I came across so far, it is based on the equal participation of all its members, allowing each one to offer his input and thus increase the chance of an impartial and unbiased final ruling. Interestingly, the average age of the judges is around 65, with ICJ president Rosalyn Higgins being the first and only female appointed to the ICJ, later becoming its president.
The complexity of ICJ’s activity also resides in the nature of the written proceedings, which can take between 2 and 6 years to complete, with all the needed steps undertaken. Nevertheless, taking into account that the ruling is made – as our speaker put it - “for eternity”, without even the possibility of appeals, it is considered to be only fair to give the states enough time to carry out all their research, provide all the necessary documents and build a strong case for themselves.
At present, some of the most interesting cases which are pending at the ICJ and which caught my attention are Romania vs.Ukraine –“Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea”, the first ICJ case ever to come from Eastern Europe and the “Pulp Mills on River Uruguay” (Argentina vs. Uruguay), the latter being extremely intriguing given the background of the two disputing countries, Argentina and respectively Uruguay. Researching about this case, I couldn’t help not think about the Global Apartheid that we had debated both during the International Relations class and in our midterm, observing the way in which poverty can even lead to the distortion of relations between traditionally friendly and good-neighboring countries. Argentina brought Uruguay before the ICJ purportedly fearing the pollution that the setting of the pulp mills can cause to river Uruguay, which is a natural border between the two states.
On the other side, Uruguay claims that the pulp mills are completely environmentally-safe, as they represent one of the biggest foreign investments in Uruguay and are to be built by European companies, using non-polluting technologies. The people of Uruguay, however, see Argentina’s attempt of blocking this project as a sign of economic-jealousy, given Argentina’s bad current economic situation, considering that Argentina’s attempt of bringing the case before the ICJ is merely an intention of hindering the foreign investment coming to Uruguay. Indeed, for some of the Latin American countries, especially those confronted with great disparities, the illusion of the West and the hope in the investments coming from rich countries which can rebuild their fragile economies is hard to shatter.
Aside from ICJ’s complex activity, there are a few aspects that I found intriguing and not fully in line with the way in which I had pictured that an “International Court of Justice” would be. From this viewpoint, one of the things that I appreciated the most about our speaker was her willingness in offering answers even to the “inconvenient” and “not fully politically correct questions”, such as those related to the somewhat biased relation between ICJ and the permanent member-states of the United Nations’ Security Council.
First of all, an intriguing aspect of the ICJ’s activity relates to the jurisdiction of the court or, specifically, to the reluctance of UN members in granting the ICJ jurisdiction over disputes that may arise from their relations to other states. Although according to the Optional Clause System, states can submit declarations by which they give ICJ jurisdiction in settling disputes with other states that submitted the same declaration, at present only UK has such a declaration actually enforced. Moreover, the declaration submitted by a state can be, at any point, modified in order to exclude certain types of disputes or even totally withdrew, withdrawing ICJ’s jurisdiction over the state’s disputes just as well. From this viewpoint, I cannot help not wonder how do the principles of justice and solving differences on which ICJ was grounded blend with the reluctance of world powers such as the US, France, Germany or Japan to actually acknowledge the ICJ as the international organism for instituting world peace and solving states’ conflicts ?
The ICJ was created as the highest court in the United Nations System and it represents the main judicial mechanism which can solve disputes between states or provide legal advisory on legal issues. It was therefore a “creation of the states”, a regulatory legal organism whose legitimacy however, the same states who created it increasingly tend to question or to avoid, in most cases due to the collision between law and national or regional interests.
In my opinion, if the UN wants the ICJ to become a true guardian of peace and a fighter against impunity, it should have its own member-states setting the example and fully accepting ICJ’s jurisdiction over all their disputes, without making use of legal loopholes such as reservations or exceptions in order to prevent the ICJ from taking decisions which would not be fully advantageous to them.
I was honestly impressed by the frankness of Mrs. Blairon in answering the question related to the criticisms of ICJ in terms of the powers that Security Council members enjoy. It is known that the ICJ experienced major criticism by the fact that permanent members of the Security Council can use their veto-powers in order to prevent the enforcement of cases to which they had previously consented to be bound. Mrs. Blairon had a blunt reaction on the matter, simply reminding us that this is one of the principles stipulated in the UN Charter, which would have to be amended in order for any changes to happen in the current order of things.
Nevertheless, this issue was never actually brought into discussion, as the amendment of the UN charter is a delicate subject that nobody seems to have the availability of tackling. In many ways, it probably is much more comfortable for the world powers to have a pre-established network of loopholes at their disposal, which they know how to use in their best interest, rather than face the situation of actually having to comply with a clear and unambiguous UN charter, which would offer equal positions vis-à-vis the law for all countries.
As I stepped out of the impressive wrought-ironed portal of the Peace Palace, my eyes caught sight of a small monument that I hadn’t noticed on my way in, the “World Peace Flame”. After this experience at the International Court of Justice, I truly hope for this flame to never cease burning and, optimistically, I wish for it to shed more light over world justice as well.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!