Interesting ICC, day three

I have a little more time today but no real internet access; I am sitting at a restaurant where you get 1mbps internet, intermittently. I am eating alone today because we have been travelling as a group for the last couple days and it’s kinda nice not to be making small talk.

Today we went to the International Criminal Court. I don’t have any pictures of the ICTY or ICC because the security is very tight and we are told not to bring anything we wouldn’t be willing to leave at the court if they decide we can’t take it in, pictures inside are prohibited anyway. Also, we are usually taken to a restricted area of the Court, just a meeting room or what not for our talks with the Court members. This court and the ICTY are guarded very heavily. Although, the ICC has better funding and actually has Jurassic Park type security, with electrified fences, tons of cameras, and electronic doors.

We were given presentations by a special counsel for the president, a prosecutor, and the president of the ICC. All of them were very interesting and hopeful for the future of an International Court that is entirely up to the voluntary participation of states, with no ‘teeth,’ or police type enforcement to back up decisions. This strikes me as ineffective, but the common and understandable refrain is that state sovereignty (when a state is ‘alive’ anyway) is too important to force any time of decision. A few of the speakers mentioned how militia members are currently refraining from hiring child soldiers, so the court is having some direct effect, but the wars and murders continue. Also, some men who have warrants from the court will outright defy them because there are very limited impacts (outside of diplomatic pressure and limited sanctions). But, the ICC is still new and the largest powers have yet to join (only somewhat participate), ie. China and the US.

The ICC is currently trying the first of its main cases since its birth in 2002, so we sat in for a little while on one of the court proceedings, questioning of a witness. It was very interesting. The witness had worked as a child soldier (under 15) in the militia of the man on trial, and he described how he stopped a military truck and killed all of the people inside, of whom were of a certain background. It is very interesting to see the men who are on trial, accused of crimes like genocide (they look so normal). The public room for viewing the trial is separated by a sound-proof glass partition, just like at the ICTY. A camera records the proceedings and you can see in through the large glass wall. Also, the entire proceedings is translated into English and French via little receivers and a team of two translators per language, which must be no easy feat considering everyone is speaking variations of African languages or French/English (sometimes) hybrids.

We then had class again, the usual reading and discussion, very interesting but focused mainly on small details. International law is very interesting, because there is no solid set of statutes or what not to which all countries agree. So, for the most part, an international court has to apply norms/customs that are ‘generally understood by most nations,’ then apply them somewhat retroactively to those who have committed massive (war) crimes. Interestingly, when small countries violate these norms (ie. torture), their leaders are prosecuted and imprisoned. But, when large and powerful countries (China/US) do similar things (not genocide but Human Rights violations), they are just ‘bullies’ who receive no repercussions.

Anyway, it is very interesting that no matter where in the world you are, so far from my experience, people are people. I am on the beach in The Hague, yet if I spoke the language it could be a beach in California. They may speak a different language, be war criminals, or beach bums, but they still have the same general attributes, needs, and a sort of common understanding.