Ajao Blog Post 3
Christine Ajao
Professor Shirk
POLS 170
23 March 2022
The International Court of Justice is a court of the United Nations where they discuss topics like international law, settle disputes of international conflict, and try leaders who commit crimes against humanity. There have been many different opinions over the international court, especially in the New York Times debated “A Global Court’s Effectiveness”, where they displayed deferent opinion pieces over the effectiveness of ICJ and brought up different points of view specifically over the case in Kenya. Each of the different opinions ranges from the support of the international court with some serious reform and other articles saying it is completely ineffective.
In the opinion piece “I.C.C.’s Dismal Record Comes at Too High a Price” where Abede talks about how the budget of the ICC suggests that it is failing and also that there has been evidence of the ICC targeting African countries specifically over human rights. Abede states “To date, the I.C.C. has exclusively targeted African countries for its nine official investigations – despite the prevalence of gross human rights violations all over world – leading to accusations of bias by the African Union. Africa is an easy target because the alleged violators come from poor countries” This particular part of the article surprised me at first until I began to reflect more upon the statement. If the international court is really there to bring justice and set a precedent internationally, why only investigate African countries and then end up acquitting their leaders?
One of the special tasks for the International Court of Justice is to create international laws that will be seen by other countries and serve as a set of international standards and ideas. How is this possible if the victims see their perpetrators free or if only one continent or region of countries is being targeted? This seems to be true in the case of President Uhuru Kenyatta, where he was acquitted. Yes, the ICC prosecuted Kenyatta but with his acquittal, his victims never saw true justice. In addition to this, if the ICC will prove itself effective then it must hold powerful countries accountable for any of their human rights violations regardless of their status. For example, some could say the HIV epidemic is a crime against humanity or the United States vs. Nicaragua where the verdict was never accepted by the United States and the money was ever paid. For the ICC to truly support justice and international law, they must hold all countries accountable and allow the victims to receive the justice they deserve.
In our previous assignment on the I.C.C., I also analyzed Daniel Abebe’s opinion-piece. Furthermore, I thought his writing was phenomenal and his sentiments strong. In your second body paragraph, you quoted a line about the I.C.C. targeting African countries for its official investigations, and the same line stood out to me when I was reading the text. If government institutions are finding “easy targets,” for official investigations, aren’t they taking the easy way out of highly important situations? As much as government institutions are necessary for a functioning global civil society, it is important to question their actions and hold them accountable. I enjoyed reading your argument in regards to this.
ReplyDelete