Blog Post 3 - Yousuf Sander



Daniel Abebe’s opinion in the New York Times debate on the International Criminal Court is telling of the weaknesses of both the I.C.C. as well as international law and its enforcement as a whole. Abebe raises questions about the potency of the massive funding delegated to the I.C.C., as the results could be said to not add up to the spending. The court has called 36 indictments, but had 6 acquittals and only two convictions, leading some to speculate on the courts effectiveness. One could make an effective argument that the courts actions against human rights abusers send a strong message of condemnation of such offenses by the whole international community. While this is a cogent point, I argue that the I.C.C. and the institution of international law itself is flawed and ineffective, which can be seen in the actions of the I.C.C. itself.
            A main criticism of international law is that it is effective only when dealing with offenses by developing countries, as more powerful countries like the United States are too influential to have the law apply to them in any meaningful way. The I.C.C. has targeted developing African states in all of its investigations, showing a trend reflected in the application of international law as a whole. Abebe argues that since there are human rights abuses all over the world that miss the desk of the I.C.C., the court chooses to go after the nations in question because it is an easy political win for them. Taking on a more developed country risks causing major controversy for the court. This is a fundamental flaw in the international justice system. If international politics can stop laws from being enforced on the most powerful nations, it renders them grossly ineffective.
            I agree with Abebe on the issue of funding as well. The massive amount of money delegated to the I.C.C. alone could be much better delegated to helping the millions suffering from extreme poverty. While there is an important message sent by the I.C.C. that humanitarian violations will not be tolerated, this message could just as well be sent by the actions of our most developed nations. Rather than throwing money at a court whose narrow focus, lengthy and inefficient investigative process make it seem relatively impotent, we could distribute that money in ways that could really help people on the ground.

            The removal of the I.C.C. provokes the question of replacement. How can the international community send a strong message against human rights abuse? I think the solution lies with the U.S. taking a stronger hardline stance against leaders who commit these abuses. How many times have we involved ourselves militarily in the affairs of other countries? If we want to position ourselves as the world leaders in democracy and justice, we should take a strong interventionist stance against human rights abuse. Perhaps the international community could make a coalition task force dedicated to removing leaders who commit these crimes from office. A coalition could potentially be a much more swift and potent response to human rights abuse. By taking a more drastic stance against human rights abuse in this way we could make it clear that we do not tolerate these crimes once and for all.

Comments

  1. Jared RostkowskiNovember 12, 2017 at 1:09 PM

    I agree that the ICC is not very effective. A change has to be made. The ICC clearly siphons money, when it could be used for something that could benefit the world more. The only problem lies with a replacement. The replacement can't ignore a major power if they do something wrong, but you also need the major powers for the replacement to have any legitimacy. I like your idea of a coalition to take down abusive leaders. While a great idea, that could run into problems with the UN and a need of approval, which would then require your idea of the US taking it into their own hands showing the world that we are the leaders of democracy and justice by taking care of the problem. A perfect replacement will be tough to make if even possible, but a change or removal of the ICC is definitely needed

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tom PilatNovember 12, 2017 at 6:27 PM

    I too believe that the ICC and international law need changes and are flawed. This is especially present, like you mentioned, when only weaker, developing countries are dealt with in a meaningful way. Countries like the United States have too much power to have anything significant happen which isn't right. I also agree with your point of money. The ICC is being delegated massive amounts of money, but this money is seldom ever put to proper use.

    ReplyDelete
  3. UnknownNovember 12, 2017 at 7:31 PM

    The ICC most definitely needs change and I liked the argument that you supplied with it. The system is extremely flawed and I agree with you on how strong powers do not face punishment compared to smaller low power countries. In order to fix it, the replacement must be neutral while also be strong enough to enforce it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Victoria PierreNovember 12, 2017 at 7:45 PM

    I agree that the ICC needs to be adjusted because there seems to be a lot of holes. Where is funding coming from and who is it going to? Also, how much authority does the ICC actually have? I think the ICC is kind of just for show and I want to know if people can be punished internationally and actually follow through.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. UnknownNovember 12, 2017 at 8:22 PM

      The court has convicted two people thus far, so it does have some authority in that respect, however, the majority of its functional purpose is to show that the international community does not side with human rights abusers. If only it was more effective at punishing those who commit these crimes...

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Blog 3 Jared Rostkowski Why NAFTA is not "The worst trade deal in the history of trade deals, maybe ever"

Why NAFTA isn't “The worst trade deal in the history of trade deals, maybe ever” Jared Rostkowski On September 25th 2016 during the first presidential debate of 2016, then Presidential candidate Donald Trump described the North American Free Trade Agreement as “The worst trade deal in the history of trade deals, maybe ever.” NAFTA is the trade agreement between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, which eliminated tariffs between the three countries. Trump has continued to voice his displeasure with the trade deal, mostly with Mexico. Anyway, NAFTA is not the worst trade deal in the history of trade deals, in fact, it is actually a trade deal that the 3 countries benefit greatly from the trade deal, and we should not pull out of it anytime soon.  So what does Trump dislike about the deal. His main displeasure comes with the fact that many companies from the U.S. are moving manufacturing to Mexico, to take advantage of Mexico’s cheap labor. Trump argued that companies like For...
Read more

Blog Post 4 - Yousuf Sander

Global terror has plagued the international community in increasing frequency and tragedy for the last two decades. The rise of groups like Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas, and others have left thousands dead and given rise to new fear, and an elusive enemy. These groups have used ever more brutal tactics to stage devastating attacks on civilians in both their home countries and abroad. In the early 2000s, the U.S. began a so-called “ War On Terror ” to combat the rise of such groups, only to have the even more dangerous organization of ISIS rise out of the ashes of our own operations in Iraq. These groups are hard to fight and even harder to dismantle, so what are our options in the War on Terror? I believe that the problem stems from the ostracized environment in which immigrant Middle eastern communities exist in the West.   As long as we continue to marginalize Muslim communities in the U.S. and Europe, we will continue to be fostering an environment that makes it easy for terrorist gr...
Read more
Yousuf Sander                          Why Syrian Intervention is a Bad Play for the U.S. Foreign intervention has become a staple policy choice if the United States since the early decades of the 20 th century. Time and time again, we have intervened in order to protect our interests, installing dictators in Latin America, toppling them in the middle east, all in order to protect our foreign interests. However, what is the right course of action when a crisis occurs that does not put our interests at stake? How, as the world ’ s foremost superpower, can we sit by and do nothing as the crisis evolves in Syria? Though intervention may seem like the obvious choice, we must weigh the costs, and our decision must be strategically based and thought out. For this reason, I don ’ t believe intervention is the right option due to the reactionary and impulsive nature ...
Read more