How do you assess the court’s ability to promote peace building in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Does this differ from how it has attempted promote peace building in Africa? It’s a fascinating question. Here you clearly see the double standards that the West has applied with respect to the role of the ICC in political conflicts. In that sense, the Palestinian membership of the ICC is a fundamental moment for a reevaluation for the role of international criminal law in political conflict. In respect to Africa, the West and particularly Europe has taken the view that there can be no peace without justice. They hold that international criminal justice must be done, even if the consequence is that a peace process may fall apart. With respect to Israel-Palestine, however, they argue that a political solution is required and that the ICC will not help. Similarly, African states have been denied development aid by the EU if they did not support the ICC. With respect to Palestine, you see the opposite. The U.S. has said that they would withhold funding from Palestine if it accedes to the Rome Statute. So with respect to some countries it was argued that international criminal justice must be applied irrespective of the consequences, whereas with respect to Israel-Palestine it was argued a political solution is required, not international criminal law. This is the moment for a thorough and empirical reevaluation of the role of international criminal law in the resolution of political conflicts. #Hypocrisymuch!
Posted on: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 14:12:27 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015