Comments on: The ICC and the end of unconditional sovereignty http://www.jeunestreet.com/2009/03/19/the-icc-and-the-end-of-unconditional-sovereignty/ On religion, governance and world development Tue, 07 Sep 2010 17:36:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Amgad http://www.jeunestreet.com/2009/03/19/the-icc-and-the-end-of-unconditional-sovereignty/comment-page-1/#comment-532 Amgad Mon, 30 Mar 2009 19:06:56 +0000 http://www.jeunestreet.com/?p=626#comment-532 Munir brings up a good point about the effects on the peace process in the Sudan. (Incidentally, anyone know the rules about "Sudan" vs. "the Sudan"?) Another approach to the question "how do we bring about peace" is to ask ourselves what are the prerequisites of peace. One suggestion is that peace requires unity, and unity requires love and justice. It is clearly not within the ICC's power or mandate to bring about love (see <a href="http://www.jeunestreet.com/2009/03/18/thoughts-from-a-my-father/" rel="nofollow">this post</a> on that topic) but it definitely is within its mandate to exercise justice. On a personal note, I'm always a bit wary of pragmatic arguments against applying a principled approach. Munir brings up a good point about the effects on the peace process in the Sudan. (Incidentally, anyone know the rules about “Sudan” vs. “the Sudan”?)

Another approach to the question “how do we bring about peace” is to ask ourselves what are the prerequisites of peace. One suggestion is that peace requires unity, and unity requires love and justice. It is clearly not within the ICC’s power or mandate to bring about love (see this post on that topic) but it definitely is within its mandate to exercise justice.

On a personal note, I’m always a bit wary of pragmatic arguments against applying a principled approach.

]]> By: Munir http://www.jeunestreet.com/2009/03/19/the-icc-and-the-end-of-unconditional-sovereignty/comment-page-1/#comment-379 Munir Thu, 19 Mar 2009 02:42:48 +0000 http://www.jeunestreet.com/?p=626#comment-379 I'd say the third criticism is the one that matters the most. The others have to do with the irrelevance of an indictment (2, 4 & 5 - the 1st is just silly), which isn't a reason not to indict, just a reason not to expect much to come of it. The question for me then is whether the benefits of the court's decision outweigh the likely harm. Let me know if I'm wrong here Geoff, but in the short run I can't imagine this making anything better in Darfur. You're playing into Bashir's hands domestically, and are unlikely to have this be the galvanizing force behind a more robust foreign intervention. On the other hand, the short-term harms are real and immediate. Aid organizations acting as conduits of vital supplies (including Mercy Corps which I worked for) have been thrown out. I can't imagine how negotiations for peace have been advanced (again, in the short term). The benefits I see from the ruling are global - it may induce would-be dictators from acting with impunity if they see Bashir tried and punished from his crimes (presumably out of power because of the ruling and not for reasons that would have occurred regardless, see Iraq). Ok, too long-winded for a comment. I am not at all convinced this ruling is a good thing. (Though I also don't think it's the court's job to decide if it's a Good Thing - their job is to apply the law as they see it written.) Your thoughts Geoff? I’d say the third criticism is the one that matters the most. The others have to do with the irrelevance of an indictment (2, 4 & 5 – the 1st is just silly), which isn’t a reason not to indict, just a reason not to expect much to come of it.
The question for me then is whether the benefits of the court’s decision outweigh the likely harm. Let me know if I’m wrong here Geoff, but in the short run I can’t imagine this making anything better in Darfur. You’re playing into Bashir’s hands domestically, and are unlikely to have this be the galvanizing force behind a more robust foreign intervention.
On the other hand, the short-term harms are real and immediate. Aid organizations acting as conduits of vital supplies (including Mercy Corps which I worked for) have been thrown out. I can’t imagine how negotiations for peace have been advanced (again, in the short term).
The benefits I see from the ruling are global – it may induce would-be dictators from acting with impunity if they see Bashir tried and punished from his crimes (presumably out of power because of the ruling and not for reasons that would have occurred regardless, see Iraq).
Ok, too long-winded for a comment. I am not at all convinced this ruling is a good thing. (Though I also don’t think it’s the court’s job to decide if it’s a Good Thing – their job is to apply the law as they see it written.)
Your thoughts Geoff?

]]>