sudan
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2012
- Messages
- 267
- Reaction score
- 20
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Justice Denied
“Imagine if there were a criminal court in Britain which only ever tried black people, which ignored crimes committed by whites and Asians and only took an interest in crimes committed by blacks. We would consider that racist, right? And yet there is an International Criminal Court which only ever tries black people, African black people to be precise, and it is treated as perfectly normal. In fact the court is lauded by many radical activists as a good and decent institution, despite the fact that no non-black person has ever been brought before it to answer for his crimes. It is remarkable that in an era when liberal observers see racism everywhere, in every thoughtless aside or crude joke, they fail to see it in an institution which focuses exclusively on the criminal antics of dark-skinned people from the ‘Dark Continent’…. Liberal sensitivity towards issues of racism completely evaporates when it comes to the ICC, which they will defend tooth and nail, despite the fact that it is quite clearly, by any objective measurement, racist, in the sense that it treats one race of people differently to all others.
Chapter Seven
Judges Elected by Vote-Trading
“[V]ote-trading, campaigning, and regional politicking invariably play a great part in candidates’ chance of being elected than considerations of individual merit.”
Professor Philippe Sands QC
“Unqualified judges…have been appointed to key positions because of highly politicised voting systems and a lack of transparency.”
The Guardian
The simple fact is that with a few exceptions the judges at the ICC have been lackluster political appointees, very much the result of the very “vote trading” about which Human Rights Watch and others have so long warned. Yet these are the same people who are tasked with making very difficult decisions about some of the most complex situations in the world, decisions that quite literally affect life and death in Africa. They are manifestly not up to the task. There is a related concern. Just as was the case in the ICTY and other projections of international “justice”, the ICC is making things up as it goes along. Human Rights Watch has pointed to “a creeping discord in the interpretations and solutions offered by the court’s Chambers to the issues before them. Differences in approach are evident from decisions (and dissents) on fundamental issues including victims’ participation, witness protection, and disclosure practices in connection with a defendant’s fair trial rights.” The ICC is perfectly willing to argue the case for universal jurisdiction but not for its own trial chambers. The Rome Statute does not make the decisions of chambers binding on one another. Human Rights Watch has rationalised this: “As the Chambers confront various country situations with unique requirements, different approaches in the application of the law to the facts may be both expected and necessary.” Yet when peace advocates and peace negotiators within various African conflicts try to advance the same sort of argument by way of suggesting a more nuanced peace first approach because of “unique” circumstances, the ICC and Human Rights Watch are their most vocal critics. In September 2010, The Guardian reported that “nqualified judges, in some cases with no expertise on international law and in one case no legal qualifications, have been appointed to key positions because of highly politicised voting systems and a lack of transparency”. The newspaper also stated that “[c]ritics say…the practices threaten the future of the international criminal court”. Geoffrey Robertson was unusually restrained when he described the ICC’s judicial appointments as “problematic”. He drew a very clear link between the quality of the court and the quality of those people appointed as judges: The viability of the ICC ultimately depends more on the calibre and experience of its judges and prosecutors than on the fine print of its statute. International appointment systems are prone to thrown up mediocrities trusted to toe the line of their nominating governments… . Often missing are persons of real independence with first-class minds and imagination… . In this respect, the statutory arrangements for appointing the Court’s eighteen full-time judges leave much to be desired.
Sudan Vision Daily - Details
“Imagine if there were a criminal court in Britain which only ever tried black people, which ignored crimes committed by whites and Asians and only took an interest in crimes committed by blacks. We would consider that racist, right? And yet there is an International Criminal Court which only ever tries black people, African black people to be precise, and it is treated as perfectly normal. In fact the court is lauded by many radical activists as a good and decent institution, despite the fact that no non-black person has ever been brought before it to answer for his crimes. It is remarkable that in an era when liberal observers see racism everywhere, in every thoughtless aside or crude joke, they fail to see it in an institution which focuses exclusively on the criminal antics of dark-skinned people from the ‘Dark Continent’…. Liberal sensitivity towards issues of racism completely evaporates when it comes to the ICC, which they will defend tooth and nail, despite the fact that it is quite clearly, by any objective measurement, racist, in the sense that it treats one race of people differently to all others.
Chapter Seven
Judges Elected by Vote-Trading
“[V]ote-trading, campaigning, and regional politicking invariably play a great part in candidates’ chance of being elected than considerations of individual merit.”
Professor Philippe Sands QC
“Unqualified judges…have been appointed to key positions because of highly politicised voting systems and a lack of transparency.”
The Guardian
The simple fact is that with a few exceptions the judges at the ICC have been lackluster political appointees, very much the result of the very “vote trading” about which Human Rights Watch and others have so long warned. Yet these are the same people who are tasked with making very difficult decisions about some of the most complex situations in the world, decisions that quite literally affect life and death in Africa. They are manifestly not up to the task. There is a related concern. Just as was the case in the ICTY and other projections of international “justice”, the ICC is making things up as it goes along. Human Rights Watch has pointed to “a creeping discord in the interpretations and solutions offered by the court’s Chambers to the issues before them. Differences in approach are evident from decisions (and dissents) on fundamental issues including victims’ participation, witness protection, and disclosure practices in connection with a defendant’s fair trial rights.” The ICC is perfectly willing to argue the case for universal jurisdiction but not for its own trial chambers. The Rome Statute does not make the decisions of chambers binding on one another. Human Rights Watch has rationalised this: “As the Chambers confront various country situations with unique requirements, different approaches in the application of the law to the facts may be both expected and necessary.” Yet when peace advocates and peace negotiators within various African conflicts try to advance the same sort of argument by way of suggesting a more nuanced peace first approach because of “unique” circumstances, the ICC and Human Rights Watch are their most vocal critics. In September 2010, The Guardian reported that “nqualified judges, in some cases with no expertise on international law and in one case no legal qualifications, have been appointed to key positions because of highly politicised voting systems and a lack of transparency”. The newspaper also stated that “[c]ritics say…the practices threaten the future of the international criminal court”. Geoffrey Robertson was unusually restrained when he described the ICC’s judicial appointments as “problematic”. He drew a very clear link between the quality of the court and the quality of those people appointed as judges: The viability of the ICC ultimately depends more on the calibre and experience of its judges and prosecutors than on the fine print of its statute. International appointment systems are prone to thrown up mediocrities trusted to toe the line of their nominating governments… . Often missing are persons of real independence with first-class minds and imagination… . In this respect, the statutory arrangements for appointing the Court’s eighteen full-time judges leave much to be desired.
Sudan Vision Daily - Details
