I think this film highlighted some of the important things we learned about the ICC. I found it particularly interesting to see the inadvertent affects of the trials on civilians or on the state of society. One of the most difficult quagmires the ICC seems to create is the idea of justice versus the idea of peace or stability. This can be in a larger sense, for example, whether or not to prosecute criminals or to end a war, or in a more localized sense, for example, in how the trials affect witnesses.
In the more localized sense, it's good to know that some attempts have been made to address the problems of witness protection, however, there still seems to be a lot that needs to be accomplished. As far as the larger picture goes, it seems important to weigh the symbolic gesture of justice versus the short term goal of ending a war. I grappled with some of these questions in my policy memo, and it seems to me that war will continue as long as those who are responsible aren't held accountable. Perhaps this particular war will end, but an atmosphere of impunity will reign if there are no ramifications for war crimes or crimes against humanity. Because of this, it seems important to go forward with ICC trials, even if it may make things more difficult in the short term.
1 comment:
I'm writing a paper on this subject through a comparison of the South African TRC and the ICTR. The TRC is held up as a model for truth and reconciliation commissions, yet it is important to remember that the apartheid era was not a conflict in the sense of the conflicts in Rwanda, Uganda, Sierra Leone, etc. While the TRC is considered relatively successful, the lack of an ongoing armed conflict makes you wonder whether such a non-punitive reconciliation method could be successful in a conflict situation like that in Uganda or Rwanda. The international trend is definitely toward punitive systems and time will tell whether ridding the world of impunity serves a deterrent for future crimes.
Post a Comment