International Criminal Law Conference Comes To An End At Chautauqua
By STEVEN M. SWEENEY
CHAUTAUQUA — Final sessions of the region’s first international criminal law symposium ended with broad-side attacks on the need for such a body of international law.
Opening salvos came at 9 a.m. with Eric Posner’s lecture and hypothesis on the limits of international law and consequently, the International Criminal Court.
‘‘What about the ICC? I’m skeptical,’’ said Posner, a University of Chicago law professor. ‘‘At best, it will be able to conduct occasional, symbolic trials. It will not conduct enough trials of enough importance to deter international crimes.’’
He presented an argument in which he believes most countries have both firstparty interests — concern for their own citizens and property; and third-party interests — warm and fuzzy regards for the problems in other areas.
Add to that the notion that nationstates — like the United States, Canada and counterparts — care more about their citizens and their well being and could not care less about the rest of the world.
‘‘For every $2,000 spent on their firstperson interests, the United States spends $1 on the rest of the world,’’ he said. ‘‘And it’s not limited to the United States, this is true the world over.’’
Conclusion: international courts work effectively only when motivated by firstparty interests, not altruism.
‘‘The prosecutors and judges have no incentive to take into consideration the political problems that arise,’’ Posner said. ‘‘It’s a matter of following through with threats.’’
Scholars remaining at the symposium roundly criticized Posner for marginalizing the body of international law — something many of them have spent lifetimes and careers building.
Matters improved little in the next session for those lawyers who want trials and tribunals for the world’s criminals. The entire session itself was devoted to trial alternatives.
Lyn Greybill, a Georgia Institute of Technology professor, spoke extensively on truth and reconciliation commissions first established in South Africa.
‘‘Which holds the most promise: pardon or punishment? Which way helps stop the bloodshed?’’ Mrs. Greybill said, using the aftermath of Rwanda as an example.
‘‘Rwandans originally asked for the ICC to try its criminals. But they soon objected to the unavailability of the death penalty, how foreign judges and prosecutors would be used instead of Rwandan ones, how much money — $180 million — would be spent on the tribunals while the national courts had to live on shoestring budgets.’’
The Rwandans preferred to institute a long-standing precolonial practice pronounced ‘‘gu-cha-cho’’ which punishes, forgives and folds a criminal back into society.
‘‘It perhaps a better method because it encourages apologies and forgiveness,’’ Mrs. Greybill said. ‘‘And it involves the entire community. Even in South Africa, apologies were not required, only full disclosure.’’