DIPLOMATICALLY INCORRECT received a critique from our guest writer, Dragan Petrovic (Facebook profile name: Dragan Peterson.) His perspectives of a recent debate held at UN TV Studio between Ambassador Muhamed (Mo) Sacirbey and Director Bill Pace, the Coalition for the International Criminal Court “Convener,” are given.

 

The Coalition for the ICC had a momentous 2011 - the indictments of Laurent Gbagbo and the Gaddafi's; new, ratifying states, and a new ICC Prosecutor; challenges ahead for 2012 for the ICC and international criminal justice; potential referrals in Syria, and beyond Africa. How the ICC is shaping evolution of progressive notions of justice including ending the death penalty are included in this debate, which is presented in its three-part entirety for reference following this blog report.

 

We are grateful to have Dragan’s comments as feedback. “Hvala,” thank you, Dragan.

 

--From Susan Sacirbey

Become a Facebook Fan: “Susan Sacirbey” & “War Crimes Justice”

 

Follow on TWITTER@ Diplomatically X

 

Dragan’s Comments for Part 1:

 

- Creation of ICC was result of long evolution of international criminal law. Mr. Pace and Mr. Sacirbey pointed out that the ICC has been created at exact time, when much of the international support was present and widespread. Still, there is much to do. But that doesn't mean that the ICC has not accomplished anything by now. Someone would ask for achievements or extraordinary results of ICC involvements, but still it is not the time to speak about statistics of the ICC, because ICC is still in its infancy. Any young idea should be analyzed first though philosophical aspect. From that point, Mr. Pace and Mr. Sacirbey recognize historical value of the idea of an international criminal court, and emphasize critical point of view of ICC's present role in international politics and law. There is also huge impact on creation of the sense for justice through ICC's social impact, rather than for revenge.

 

From my point of view, fully formed sense for international justice will be created only then, when all of the world's leading countries recognize the ICC as the international supreme criminal court. Until then, the ICC will be (as Mr. Pace pointed out) an idea carried out by small and middle state democracies. I also believe that a fully operational ICC needs more international independency. That means, in some point of time, the ICC will need to change statute in order to achieve a more effective approach and recognition.

 

– Dragan’s Comments for Parts 2 & 3:

 

- Based on what I've already said in my previous comment of "Part One" and what Mr. Sacirbey and Mr. Pace pointed out, it is evident that the ICC has been used, more or less, as a political institution by big powers. It is important to change that notion which gives completely another picture of the ICC in global perspective. They also said, that the Syria problem opens a lot of new questions which need to be answered. I think Syrian problem will open, at the end, a need for reformation of the ICC statute and also different political approach for the Middle East, which can cause, hopefully, greater international acceptance of the ICC.

 

They also mentioned the "death sentence". This is an area which has been greatest field of debate for a long time. It is important to separate a few things here in order to understand goal of the death sentence. First one is law theory of special and general prevention and their goals, and second are goals of justice and revenge. Mr. Pace and Mr. Sacirbey are speaking about difference between justice and revenge (which I support btw.), but I'll try to bring law theory and with that open new perspective of justice and revenge.

 

Theory of special prevention asks for rehabilitation and re-socialization of the criminals, so they can be able to integrate themselves in society more effectively after they go out from prison and not to commit new crimes. General prevention asks for preventive influence on society to not commit a crime in the first place. Personally, I am not against neither for death sentence. I try to seek ultimate purpose of any kind of sentence, and in international criminal law for some crimes that can be only general prevention. This causes purpose of any sentence to have completely different implications in international criminal law. I would not call death sentence a "barbarian act", because as far as humanity corrects itself through criminal law, any sentence is barbarian. Still, I believe that all national criminal law systems should abandon death sentence. But, in the case of international criminal law, there should be another story. This is not because of the need for revenge, it is because of purpose of this law; that is, it is not effective (from the view of the general prevention theory) to make such penalties for genocide which are same as for regular murder, or that international criminal law has "softer" punishments than national criminal law (i.e. ICTR and national criminal law in Rwanda).

 

I'll try to explain it in this way: the most responsible individuals should be aware that committing genocide brings death sentence with it. This is not about revenge, it is about to force such individuals to think twice before they decide to commit a genocide (general prevention). For ultimate crimes should be ultimate punishment in order to make difference between regular crimes in national criminal law and international crimes. It is absurd that international crimes in the ICC statute are protected with softer punishments than same crimes in some national law systems. That is why many of responsible individuals are more willing to go before international courts than before national one. As one of my professors pointed out "at least, ICC statute should bring qualified type of crime of genocide which will be useful for those who are main creators of entire atrocity, and such qualified crime should be protected with death punishment only".

 

This is area where I have some disagreements with Mr. Pace and Mr. Sacirbey. In fact, my disagreement with them is in the question "should death sentence be used or not", but not in disagreement about "should such sentence be in purpose of revenge or justice and general prevention in it". In this matter, I agree with them completely. There should be no punishment only for achieving revenge.

 

Special prevention has no use in international criminal law, because of importance of committed crimes. Main question here is "how to re-socialize a person who was main creator of the crime of genocide? Should he/she be later able to work in same society where he committed such crime (because that is one of the main goals of special prevention)? If Yes, is that wrong message to future criminals to believe if they commit genocide they will stay alive and even go back in same society and walk free where they committed such crime in first place?

 

This is area where supporters for death punishment are finding their arguments. Personally I support them, but only in area of international criminal law. Ethical question about death punishment gets answer from its purpose.

         ---- Best Regards, Dragan

 

Related Film and Blog Reports:

 

ICC – 2012 (Bill Pace Interview – Part 1) 18min. http://diplomaticallyincorrect.org/films/movie/icc-2012-bill-pace-interview/29484

 

ICC- 2012 (Part 2) 13min. http://diplomaticallyincorrect.org/films/movie/icc-2012-part-2-bill-pace-interview/29499

 

ICC – 2012 (Part 3) 12min. http://diplomaticallyincorrect.org/films/movie/icc-2012-part-3-bill-pace-interview/29500

 

Diplomatically Incorrect Channels: http://diplomaticallyincorrect.org/c/diplomatically-incorrect

 

War Crimes Justice Channels: http://diplomaticallyincorrect.org/c/war-crimes-justice

 

Bosnia Channels: http://diplomaticallyincorrect.org/c/bosnia