Julie Flint and Alex de Waal wrote a very interesting op-ed about the current ICC situation in Sudan. You all should take a look at it!
Basically they argue that the ICC shouldn't go after Bashir right now since it would severely endanger the sudanese people, relief workers, and the north-south Comprehensive Agreement.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think they make a convincing argument and, whether intentionally or not, present a damning criticism of the ICC in general. It seems to me that in today's global political environment the only way that an international court would be able to work is after a military conflict has been settled. Nuremberg is the model, but if those conditions have been to be replicated for the system to work then that's going to be a huge problem. If the international community can't get Sudan to cooperate then what happens if we get news of worse crimes coming from North Korea or Pakistan? Or, worse yet, what if a country - I'll refrain from naming names here - with a nuclear capability roughly equal to or own, with a history of political instability suddenly sees its economic windfall evaporate and an intense consolidation of power brings about an internecine conflict causing chaos, murder and famine?
Prevention or punishment? Seems like right now we can't have the former and we shouldn't stomach settling for the latter.
Good article, though.
Post a Comment