I spent nearly two years in the Republic of Moldova so this article caught my eye and made me think. In the country, Human Trafficking, which is funded by outside sources, represents a kind of "black" market economy that pays police to turn their heads and coopts many politicians. In fact, Moldova was a Tier 3 country, the lowest rating, regarding Human Trafficking in 2008 until it barely squeezed by for a Tier 2 rating in 2009. I have a lot to say on the subject but want to pose questions instead: Can the ICC be effective in places where corruption and violation of human rights are so entrenched? Can it stand against crippling institutional memory and grow beyond political nicety into actual implementable power?
I am not sure. I tend be idealistic and subscribe to such day-dreams as the 2048 Project but on other hand am skeptical about the possibilities in countries where I have real experience.
Though perhaps a little cynical, it seems that it is right to question the effectiveness of the ICC. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence for the gravest human rights violations (see article), the ICC can actually be a catalyst for further controversy and internal conflict, rather than a means of pursuing justice. Sudan chose not to recognize the ICC, which shows that it requires a huge display of good faith towards international law simply to become party to the statues of the ICC. In that regard, Moldova is taking an important step, but it does butt against the general problems of international law's lack of enforceability. Still, I tend to think that becoming a party, or not, to the ICC is more a symptom of the state of human rights in a given nation, rather than a tool for improving those conditions.
ReplyDeleteSudanese President tells ICC to "eat" arrest warrant
http://www.ejc.net/magazine/article/moldova_and_the_media_why_track_human_trafficking/