As this blog has been tending towards the question of international justice, and coming to some sound but somewhat discouraging conclusions, I thought I should point out when, it appears, the UN is getting it exactly right. Since July, an independent court comprised of Cambodian and international personnel has been trying senior Khmer Rouge leaders for war crimes and violations of international law. Though cynics might argue that it is too late to hand down judgments so long after the fact, I tend to think that it does indeed make a powerful statement. There is no statute of limitations on national memory, and, as such, crimes as heinous as those committed by the Khmer Rouge regime cannot go ignored.
But there is more at work here than simply bringing international criminals to justice. One of the main functions of international bodies like the UN and the ICC is to help institutionalize a set of norms for country behaviors and interactions. National governments tend to send confusing signals - the US condemning human rights violations and sanctioning North Korea, for example, while at the same time maintaining brisk and happy trade relations with China, another human rights offender. This is because nations have multitudinous, conflicting interests, and, regardless of how you view policy machinations, no country can achieve all of its objectives simultaneously.
The international organizations that countries and concerned citizens create have a significantly more focused role, especially when it comes to human rights. They set the norms by which individuals and nations can judge the behavior of other bodies in the system. Putting war criminals on trial is an unambiguous sign that shows what sorts of policies and actions are not allowed by these norms, and strengthens and further defines the image of what the world Ought (capital "O") to be. It is less that the UN has a freer hand when it comes to international trials (though it certainly does), or that it's multilateral bent gives it more international legitimacy and the moral high group (although that is a key reason for its existence). What the UN is able to do is establish and reinforce a vision of the world in which human rights violators are punished and governments are held responsible to a higher authority. Every time more details of that vision are made manifest, the very notion of international justice itself becomes less chimera and more of a concrete - and achievable - objective of the international landscape. The system may lack consistent enforceability (see Moldova and Rwanda/Uganda/DRC posts) but considering international justice is an invention of the international system, it needs to be made real before we can expect it to have much bite.
I think you hit the nail on the head. It's a great point; in fact, the "Ought" is inclusive which is what the UN tends towards. This kind of strategy is remarkably time intensive. In the short-term, do you believe other strategies, such as economic pressure, can limit any "political impunity"?
ReplyDeleteHey, I am posting this comment from Jayde, one of our former interns:
ReplyDeleteI agree that while the UN is attempting to hold countries accountable for
war crimes, at the end of the day their power is limited and will remain
limited when it comes to the "superpowers". Countries like the United
States will go along with the UN as long as it satisfies them but the
moment that they are called into question - the UN's power is halted. When
other countries wanted to try Israel for its war crimes in Lebanon, it was
the US who stepped in and prevented it. In the past, when the actions of
certain countries have gone unchecked like in the case Israel and
Guantanamo Bay it further demonstrates that the UN will remain an
ineffective tool for true justice. The UN is dependent upon the good will
of the powerful countries for troops, money and support in general. This
causes the UN to lose its legitimacy with other countries who view the UN
as a puppet of the US and other powerful countries. If the UN wants to
have "international legitimacy" then it is imperative to maintain
consistency in all of their policies. I understand that consistent
enforceability will take time because this international justice is an
invention of the international system but too much time can/will result in
a loss of legitimacy.
I think you are correct to point out that the UN loses legitimacy when its actions are so obviously blocked by certain powerful (ie Security Council) nations. However, this assumes that the UN's key role is as an ensurer and administrator of justice. I do not strictly agree that this is true. I think that it would be truly beneficial to the world if this were the case, but that the UN's primary function now is as a concrete, if flawed, representation of an ideal. International justice is, as I said, practically chimera. Though consistent enforcement via the UN would make international justice into a norm that countries all over would start to follow, even inconsistent enforcement makes all countries aware of the possibility of international justice. It becomes a genuine part of the conversation.
ReplyDeleteA more troubling point that your comment alludes to, though does not spell out, is what happens when the enforcement of international justice becomes not simply patchy but systematically skewed, becoming a tool for certain powerful countries to one country or set of countries. Any thoughts on whether this is an accurate description?