Please read the New York Times article describing the arrest here and answer the following questions as a journal length response in the comments section.
1.) What is the responsibility of an international body to intervene when crimes against humanity continue to occur or when the legal system within a country abuses the human rights of its citizens? What are the situations in which you think an international body should act?
2.) In the last few years, there has been growing concern and outrage internationally for the genocide being perpetrated in Darfur. The International Criminal Court has investigated, witnessed the atrocities, and issued three arrest warrants. The ICC can not intervene in a country that has not dedicated its itself into bringing these perpetrators of crimes against humanity to justice. What would you do if you worked for the ICC and wanted to verify that the Sudanese government and legal system was taking the role of bringing criminals to justice seriously?
46 comments:
1.
I think that whenever a country does not seem to be taking action to put an end to- or hold those accountable for - a mass atrocity, internationally countries can step in and help. If a country is not trying to help and change what's going on, something must be wrong. There could be various factors as to why the leaders of the country are not doing anythin, they might not even be trying to. Therefore, something like the ICC should take control and help the people who are in danger and need. After the atrocity, other countries should step in to make sure criminals are being punsihed or acknowledged.
2.
In order to verify that the Sudanese government was taking control of everything, I would go there myself, and with others, if possible. I would sit firsthand with the leaders and help them contact adn capture the criminals. If I could not go there myself I'm not sure what I would do. I would keep in touch as much as I could with the Sudanese officials, and make sure they tape the trials or various ways of punishment.
1) I believe that it is definitely the responsibility of an international body to intervene when crimes against humanity continue to occur whether the nation has attempted to prevent these crimes or not. In this situation, either the government does not have enough power to intervene or they are supporting the crimes. It is crucial for someone to prevent the destruction or mistreatment of these people because it will set an example toward other nations. If a group is committing crimes against humanity and is unopposed, other groups will begin to think that they could do the same thing. International intervention is important for people in distress in the current situation as well as for future situations. I think that if a government is abusing the human rights of its citizens, it is important for the international community to tell the nation that they know what is going wrong and that it is wrong then they would have to take more drastic measures if the government did nothing to change its actions and policies. I think that an international body should intervene only when the nation in need requests help, is unable to deal with the crime, or whose government is a participant in the crimes.
2) It is very difficult to inspire a government to bring criminals to justice, especially when there is the possibility of some of the criminals being in the government. It is important that the ICC somehow show the government how awful the situation is and how it needs immediate attention by stopping the leaders. It is possible that the government may listen if the ICC told them that they could be considered as accomplices in the inevitable trials proceeding Darfur. This way the government would have no choice but to bring criminals to justice, which may end up in the revelation of criminals in the government system. Also, sending willing people to Darfur is a way to produce witnesses, people who can later attest to the atrocities and perhaps use the evidence against the government if they are not willing to help.
1) There is a time and place for international governments to interve in one countries problems. When a country seems to be not taking action on human right problems and not doing things for the good of their people then other countries need to step in. When murders and rapes of citizens are occuring and the gvernment is not taking action there is something else going. International governments need to step in and protect the citizens of the contry since there government is not doing anything and could be corrupt. We now know how crimes of humanity can escalate and governments need to protect their people. It ifnthey can't then someone else has to.
2) If I was a part of the ICC I would go there and see how they werendealjng with the arrests. I would also get the sudanese government to sotndown with the ICC and figure out why they havnt decided to be dedicated in bring these perpertrators to justice. They need to recognize that there is awful crimes getting committed in their country. While there before meeting with the government officials I would see what exactly their legal system is doing and how they are trying to find the people who they have warrents for. Also once the perpatrators are caught, figure out they plan to try them and punish them. If I couldn't go there I think it would be more difficult and not sure what I would do.
1.
I think that it is definitely the responsibilty of an international body to intervene when human rights are abused in any country. When a country and its government are not taking serious steps to ensure public safety or if the government itself is involved in such mass atrocities as in Sudan, organizations like the ICC should intervene and hold the country responsible and accountable for violating human rights. As citizens of one community, everyone has the right to protect the other. And in such a case, whenever any rights are violated or crimes are committed and significant steps are not taken by the home nation, international intervention is a must.
2.
I would want to make sure that the steps the ICC has taken be known to everyone around the world. If the ICC has issued arrest warrants and wants some criminals to be legally brought to a trial, I would make the news as public as possible and available to everyone.This would definitely put a lot of pressure on the Sudanese government and it would be forced to take some actions. Otherwise, the whole world would hold them accountable for the trouble in Sudan and the nation would not be recognized and respected so well. Also I would go to the nation and have people sign petitions or hold rallies to just force the government into some action. Building pressure is the only way to insure safety of people especially in a critical situation like this one when thousands of people are being brutally murdered. And when a country wants to have a reputation it would accept the demands.
1. The international body has complete responsibility to intervene when crimes against humanity continue to occur. The fundamental purpose of such a body is to stop mistreatment of human victims. If there had been an international body during the Holocaust and they had not moved to action they would be blamed in the present. It is the same concept. There is mistreatment and responsibility falls upon justice to end the atrocities. The same thing goes for a skewed legal system. Whenever human rights are violated other countries and the law need to step in to preserve humanity and prevent genocide. The international body should act in any situation where recognized human rights are being disregarded, and clear injustice, outlined by the 4 main charges, is being committed.
2. In order to verify that the criminals were being handled with serious justice I would send representatives to observe the proceedings. Each trial would be witnessed and recorded then reported back. Also, the members of the court (judges, prosecutors, etc.) would all be researched to ensure impartiality and true justice.
1. The responsibility of an international body IS to intervene when crimes against humanity continue to occur, no matter where they are being committed. In the case of the janjaweed militia leader, Al Kushayb,there is dispute over whether or not he will be tried in an international court. The Sudanese government is insisting on trying anyone they arrest in their own courts, but how can justice be served in a court run by a corrupt government? In this sense, it is always an international responsibility to intervene when crimes against humanity are being committed.
2. In this situation, in which the ICC has gone to Sudan, witnessed the atrocities, and still cannot legally make arrests, they have limited options. To me, the only reasonable solution would be to somehow enforce a legal system in which the criminals of these atrocities would be punished. That would mean either overthrowing the Sudanese government, or instilling a temporary government made up of ICC officials, both of which would inevitably inspire resentment among civilians which could potentially lead to more violence.
1. Normally I would say that it is not the responsibility of an international body to intervene in another country's problems. However, when crimes against humanity are being committed and the citizens of a country are no longer safe from their own government, then it is time for the international community to get involved. They should also get involved even when the government itself is not abusing the human rights of its citizens, but is still failing to act in the protection of its citizens merely for their own political purposes. A government's first duty should be to protect their people and when they fail to do so, then an international body needs to get involved.
2. If I were part of the ICC and wanted to verify that the Sudanese government was dedicated to bringing the perpetrators to justice, I would go there myself and observe the proceedings of how they were dealing with the criminals. If I then felt that they were not doing everything in their power to stop the crimes then I would work with the government leaders to try and make them realize that they needed to do something about the situation. I would not return until I was convinced and could verify that the government was dedicated to stopping the crimes against humanity that were being committed.
I believe that whenever mass atrocities occur within a given country and there is nothing being done within the country to help stop the crimes taking place, it is time for international countries to step in and take control. If something happens in a country where thousands of people are being killed, it is not a matter of whether international countries feel like it is their responsibility to help, but they should want to help. If it is too late by the time other countries step in and help put an end to such atrocities, they should at least take it upon themselves to help take part in bringing justice to the victims of the event and to fully punish those in charge and who were involved in such a hateful thing.
2) I would personally want to be present at the trials of the accused to make sure they recieve the most appropriate punishment for their actions. If this is not possible, I agree with Ryan in sending representatives from my country to assess the accusations and bring back the outcome to ensure it was handled appropriatly.
1.It is definitely the responsibility of an international body to intervene when crimes against humanity continue to occur and also when the country abuses the human rights of its citizens. The country should if anything try and out those being persecuted and try and figure out the cause of the crimes the country is committing against its citizens. The situations in which I think that an international body should act is when the discover information about mass-murder, the murder of a couple of government officials in high power and if the international body has proof on any of the four main war crimes.
2.If I worked for the ICC and wanted to verify that the Sudanese government and legal system was actually taking the role of bringing criminals to justice seriously I would sit down with the Sudanese officials whose job is to bring the criminals to justice and to actually find the criminals with the officals.
1. When crimes against humanity are continuing to occur or when the legal system within a country abuses the human rights of its citizens, an international body needs to intervene. An international body should first stop the crimes against humanity, and then charge those involved. When the country is not actively trying to stop crimes against humanity, and people are dying buy the thousands, such as in Sudan, then an international body should intervene and bring the atrocities to an end.
2. If I worked for the ICC and wanted to verify that the Sudanese government and legal system was taking the role of bringing criminals to justice seriously I would go to the trials and make sure that the role of bringing criminals to justice was being taken seriously. While I was in Sudan, I would also investigate the area and make sure that the people who are responsible for the atrocities there and being held accountable. I wouldn’t just hope that they were taken the punishments seriously. I would go there and see for myself if they are or not.
1) International body should intervene and take over the legal system. International body should be responsible to find justice and put criminals to jail. The legal system in Sudan is wrong because it justifies the perpetrators and is not defending the victims. It is the same thing if Nazis were put to trial where the all the jury is Nazis. This is the exact same thing that happened in the south when blacks were put to trial, only white jury was present. Making it impossible for blacks to be found non-guilty to a crime they did not commit. A situation in which an international body should act is when a country is not giving justice to the victims that suffered in the genocide.
2)If I worked in the ICC and wanted to verify that the Sudanese government and legal system was taking the role of bringing criminals to justice seriously, I would go under a disguise and watch a trial while taking notes on wherever or not the judges or the juries are being fair. I would look at how the evidence is presented in front of the court and how the jury is portioned (so there would be no bias). After a trial is done I would report back to the ICC.
1. In my opinion it just depends on the reliability of the government. Obviously, the sudan government is unable to go ahead against the Darfur genocide, most likely because of several reasons, such as having enough power to face the nation's problems. If this is the case, how it is in many countries nowadays, an international body should intervene. I want to repeat, that i believe, that it is necessary to determine if the country's executive is "strong" (not corrupt, fair, well trained, etcetc) enough to go against criminals, regardless of their crimes, basically. If they have something like a good working executive with a constitution and fair trials i don't see any reasons to intervene. But if it is not the case, I think an international body should intervene, and try to give a working law system, which the average citizen of the country can trust on, back. Criminals must be held responsible for their actions!
2.
Like I have discussed in the first ConnectionQuestion Response, you have to determine the reliability. If I was part of the ICC and i realize that the Sudanese government is not working with us, or does not put much effort in finding and accusing war criminals, I would know, that there is something wrong. So actually, I just have two choices I could take to make the government willing to work. The first idea that came to my mind is control through presence. Sometimes the work does not go on because the investigators are not in a hurry, because they don't get the importance. If I was in the Sudan and try to talk to the court every day, many, many times, they might just work faster to get rid of me. Or they feel ashamed that nothing works so far and try to make it better since I'm here. That would be the peaceful and optimistic solution, but it may not be the best.
The second idea that would probably work better, although it does not match with my values would be a military intervention to rebuild the strength of the legislative and of the executive. I would not conquer them, I would just try to offer them police and security forces and more investigators and objective and fair judges to rebuild the basis of the system. Some people are not ready for a fair law system, but if they want to be part of the global world, they either have to adjust their values to the values of the world (like fair law, and trials and stuff like that) or they have to be forced to become like they have to be to guarantee the nation can get on with the moral of the rest of the world.
That would be the only way how to assure a safe world, and although this is not exactly what you have asked, it kind of shows my view of the world, and how I would try to react on this issue.
Benni
1. I think that the government should create a system that would allow for justice to those who are guilty and provide aid to those that were hurt. They need to punish all those that were involved, I believe this is the first step in making the nation peaceful again. groups like the ICC should help governments come up with plans for justice making and should also raise awarness around the world so that more help and aid can be given to those in need. Governments must step in a do something when crimes against humanities are happening just standing around and not doing anything i think is a crime in it's self.
2. If i were part of the ICC i would go over the the Sudanese government and help them create a very detailed system to make justice and also a detailed summary of the crimes. I believe the reason why no arrests have been really made is because there really isn't a clear system in this government and until this is made then there will be no arrest and justice. Without justice to those guilty there can be no peace and no healing for the nation I think. Creating justice in a nation like this may seem hard but that doesn't mean that the ICC should stop trying it would make them want to try even harder to create peace once again in this nation.
1. I think that the international body is responsible to intervene when crimes against humanity continue to occur because if they know what is going on with all of these mass atrocities, they are just being bystanders and are not doing anything to stop it. The international body try their best to stop these mass killings by just saving as many people as they can and catching the people who are causing this. Many people would say for them to have a death sentence, but I think punishing them and putting them in jail is far worse because they have to live with what they have done and living in a jail is punishment in itself.
2. If I worked for the ICC, I would probably go there and see how the Sudanese government was trying to bring criminals to justice. If I didn't like their plans, I would give them my own plans and try to be as much a part of it as possible.
1. The responsibility of other countries is to step in and take action when no action is being taken upon. If it seems that one specific country isn't doing anything to stop its criminals within that country, aren't doing there job. In such a case that another country has to step in and take the necessary action, then that country clearly doesn't care about its citizens. If ever there is ever a mass atrocity and those who are responsible are not being tried for the crimes that they've committed, then further action is needed from a neighboring country.
2. I would go to the Sudanese government and ask to sit in during any trial of a criminal. This way I could verify that this person is being tried and being put to justice. If I was unable to attend a trial then I would ask to have a live radio broadcast or a written transaction of what happened during the trial. I would then report back giving my comments on the results of the trial.
1) I think that the international body has the responsibility to intervene when people in a country have committed crimes against humanit and crimes that are outrageous. The international body has the right to intervene whenever a country does not take the appropriate action to punish perpetrators of a crime. If crimes against humanity or other horrible crimes are committed and the country does not make an attempt to punish the perpetrators of the crime, the international body has the responsibility to intervene and punish the people. The country's government has a chance to stop the atrocities and to punish the perpetrators, but if the government is unable to do so, because of a lack of support/power, then the international body must intervene to stop the atrocity. When the government has a lack of control over its people and the group committing the crime is unopposed, the international body should intervene to help the government regain control and to punish the perpetrators, either internationally or within the individual country.
Oops...
2) If I worked for the ICC, I would go to Sudan to verify that the government there was taking the appropriate action to bring the criminals to justice. First, I would somehow find a way to "spy" on the government without getting caught. In doing so, this would allow me to gain insight into how the government was handling the criminals and justice. After gathering information, I would try to meet with government officials. With the government officials, I would discuss ways to effectively punish the criminals and bring justice to the country through some sort of trial.
1. I say that an international body would have a right to intervene if crimes against humanity are committed, whether the country it is committed in want it or not. It would neither be right nor fair to leave millions of innocent people to be killed, especially if the country is doing nothing to stop it, or if what they tried to do failed. If the international body knows what’s going on, and can see that no steps are taken, or any attempts to stop these crimes fails, then they should act.
2. The only sure way to see that the Sudanese government was seriously trying to bring these criminals the justice would probably go to Sudan to see for oneself. If a group went to witness what the government was doing, then we could find out how seriously they are taking their role, and find out the how their going about bringing the criminals to justice.
1. I say that an international body would have a right to intervene if crimes against humanity are committed, whether the country it is committed in want it or not. It would neither be right nor fair to leave millions of innocent people to be killed, especially if the country is doing nothing to stop it, or if what they tried to do failed. If the international body knows what’s going on, and can see that no steps are taken, or any attempts to stop these crimes fails, then they should act.
2. The only sure way to see that the Sudanese government was seriously trying to bring these criminals the justice would probably go to Sudan to see for oneself. If a group went to witness what the government was doing, then we could find out how seriously they are taking their role, and find out the how their going about bringing the criminals to justice.
1. I think that in this specific case the international body has a tremendous responsibility to intervene and do something. If the international body does not feel that the country is doing everything they can to bring people who have committed atrocities like this to justice then they owe it to the victims and to the world to intervene. They need to bring people like this to justice so that a message can be sent to the world for any future genocides that may occur. They need to show everyone that it isn't acceptable and then it will not be tolerated.
2.If i worked for the ICC and I believed that the sudanese government wasn't doing everything possible to bring these criminals to justice I would start an investigation. I would bring as many members as I could to Sudan and talk to government leaders to see what they are doing right and wrong and how we could fix the problem. If i found any corruption of any sort punishments would be handed out right away because if they aren't cooperating with bringing these criminals to justice then in a way they are contributing to the genocide and could be considered accomplices
After the Holocaust and Armenian Genocide, you would think that the world would be more preventative for atrocities committed today. And though factors like opposing moral obligations can complicate matters more, I believe that the international body has the responsibility no matter what circumstances to intervene when crimes against humanity occur. Because a legal system allows the abuse of human rights, does not mean people should abide by it. As well, if people live under such a legal system, it could instill prejudices or encourage abusing human rights. An international body should act if the any war crimes occur, and there is no stable government to control the situation. An international body should also intervene if the legal system allows abusing of human rights. Even if there weren't any crimes committed yet, the ICC would be able to prevent, control and help the people being mistreated. Other nations also have the responsibility for punishing people committing atrocities if their government is unable to.
Darfur is coming more and more into the spotlight. Again, after preceding genocides, the world swore to never allow something like the Holocaust to happen again. But I don't believe we're doing all that we can to help the Darfur cause. I don't think it is just that the ICC can't intervene in a country that has not dedicated itself into bringing perpetrators of crimes against humanity to justice. The government is obviously corrupt if it is protecting men that for sure have committed crimes against humanity. Thus, this legal system is not adequate to apply proper justice on these people, like Al Kushayb.
1. I think that it is definitely the responsibility of an international body to intervene when crimes against humanity are being carried out in a nation. I feel that even if there have been actions taken and efforts made to stop crimes against humanity, it is still the responsibility of an international body to help stop them, because the more help a nation has, the quicker these crimes will end, and therefore there will be less victims.
2. In this case, I would first make sure that all trial decision makers were unbiased. I would also try to discuss with the Sudanese government the situation, and if that had no effect, then I would try to make a temporary new government in SUdan so that those who have been witnessed to being guilty get the punishment that they deserve. I don't know how practical that is though.
I think that an international body should intervene to the best of their capability. They probably will be unable in some cases, considering they cannot intervene unless the country is evidently dedicated to justifying those who are charged with crimes against humanity. However, if they have the ability, I think it is important that they do what they can, otherwise they should not be called the “International Criminal Court”. If there is a country in which crimes against human rights are occurring, and the country is not taking it seriously, I think that is an appropriate situation to act, and try to prevent further abuse of human rights. If I worked for the International Criminal Court, and I had to verify that a country was taking it’s abuse of human rights seriously, there are a few things I would look for. First, I would probably look at how well leaders of the crimes are pursuing their capabilities. For example, if someone in charge of mass atrocities is getting away with large amounts of murders easily, then the country probably isn’t trying too hard to bring criminals to justice. Second, I would look at how the country is dealing with captured orchestrators. For example, in Sudan, since the government did not allow the ICC to take Ali Kushayb and put him through trials, I would closely monitor the government’s progress in investigating the suspect.
1.) I believe that international bodies have the responsibility to intervene when crimes against humanity occur. When a legal system gives the opportunity for human rights to be abused, people take advantage of it. International bodies should get involved when the government is so corrupt that no actions within the country can stop the abuse. If the government within the country cannot control the mass atrocity or human rights abuse then other countries are responsible to stop it, and punnish those responsible for the crimes.
2.) If I were a member of the ICC, in order to verify that the Sudanese government and legal system was taking the role of bringing criminals to justice seriously, I would send people to observe the trials first hand, and have them record everything and report back. Also I would help them create a system to bring the criminals to justice. I would also make the news public, which would put alot of pressure on the Sudanese government to follow through with bringing the criminals to justice.
1) Right now there is no international body with the ability, desire, or means to intervene in a sovereign country when human rights are being abused. The member nations of the UN all try to protect their country's individual interests, so it is ineffective as a worldwide group. The role of the UN should be to police the world and keep abuses like those in Darfur from happening. But for an international body to do this it must be completely free of obgligation to any nation, which is not possible in the current makeup of the UN, with members representing their own country, rather than having the interests of humans at heart. This ideal international body should act when human rights are being abused in any nation, and should have their own peacekeeping force, similar to the UN's, but again, whose members have no affiliation to any nation.
2) There is no way to verify that the Sudanese government is trying to bring war criminals to justice because these criminals are in the Sudanese government. This is why the ICC system is ineffective, because often the government of the nation is supporting and sponsoring the genocide being committed, so they will obviously not agree to the arrest of their own people by an international court.
1) It is the responsibility of an international body to stop any crimes against humanity that they know are happening. If they suspect that crimes against humanity are happening then they must investigate further and take action if they are proven correct. An international body should act if killings or other atrocities are being perpetrated systematically, and are being planned in order to achieve some type of goal. In the event that crimes against humanity are being perpetrated as an effect of war, and not because they are planned an international body should still step in and try to moderate the conflict.
2)If I worked for the ICC I would try to get as many witness testimonies as possible. I would also try to get agents from the ICC to go there and bring back evidence. Preferably these actions would take place extremely quickly, so that lives weren't lost due to bureaucracy. I think in order to get the government to cooperate one needs to tell them exactly what the consequences are for there actions. Also, because crimes against humanity can be tried in international court even if they are legal within the nation, one could even arrest the leaders of the genocide.
1) I think that an international body should intervene when crimes against humanity occur in a country or if of its citizens' rights are being abused if the government of that country is doing nothing to stop these crimes. The rest of the world should not just sit back while atrocities are occuring if they have knowledge of them - I believe it is up to the world to do something. Though many may not see citizens of other countries as in their "universe of obligation", I think it IS their obligation to step in if such atrocities are occurring.
2) I'm not exactly sure what I would do if I was working for the ICC and wanted to make sure the Sudanese government/legal system was trying to bring criminals to justice seriously. Visiting the area and making sure they were doing all they could would be a good start, but if they weren't doing everything in their power to achieve justice, I would most likely try to create a new system that tried the criminals effectively.
1.
Where there are crimes against humanity being committed, it is the responsibility of humanity to intervene. If the country in which the atrocities are being committed is not being active in fighting the crimes and bringing the perpetrators to justice, it then falls upon the international community to step it. Though this seems clear cut in theory, in reality it is much fuzzier in terms of whether crimes against humanity are being committed and whether the government is truly making an effort to stop them. Without actually physically being in the country in question, it can be near impossible to get correct and complete information about the situation, and sometimes even with information it is unclear if the government is being effective.
2.
In order to ensure that the Sudanese government is taking the steps they claim to be taking against the genocide, the ICC must go physically to Sudan and investigate. If the government is not being effective, the ICC should sit down with the Sudanese government and come up with a plan for addressing the genocide, with emphasis on saving those who are endangered and catching the leaders and trying them in and international court. It is also important that at the trial the victims, at least some of them, be present. For those who cannot be at the trial directly, I think that it should be televised and well covered by the media worldwide and especially in Sudan, so that the people can see how the international community is trying to right the wrongs committed in Sudan.
1. I think that the responsibility of an international body depends entirely on the situation. Certainly, if the situation involves more than one country, than the international party should be involved, but when the issue is entirely internal, it is a bit more complicated. In most cases, though, I think that the international community should intervene, at least to some extent. For example, during the Rwandan genocide, which only effected Rwandans, there was a definite need for an international help. In some cases, I think that the country should be able to deal with the problem by themselves, especially if no internal party wants help, but the majority of the time, the way I see it, we are all on this planet together and when a crime against humanity is committed, as humans, it is our duty to stop it, no matter what the international country borders are.
2. If I worked for the International Criminal Court and I wanted to ensure that the country's government was taking the problem seriously and attempting the bring the perpetrators to justice, I would start with words. I would ask them what they were doing, and let them know that the international community was looking for the Sudanese government to find and prosecute these people. If they gave a positive reply, but their actions showed nothing, or if they gave a negative answer, then I would intensify the message that they needed to bring these criminals to justice. If that still didn't work, then I would continue to make the message more and more urgent, until finally I would probably see if there was a way to send people into Sudan, who were not connected with the government in any way to try to find these people. This, I know, can be called "morally gray" but I think that in situations like this, we can not look at crimes against humanity as a problem for a specific country, but for all mankind. The fact that these people are still out and committing crimes against humanity is not just a problem for Sudan (or whatever country), but a problem for humans world wide.
1.) I think that it is essential for an international body to intervene when crimes against humanity continue to occur or when the legal system within a country abuses the human rights of its citizens. Allowing such acts to take place before an unresponsive world only encourages future crimes. Hitler was sure he'd be able to get away with the Holocaust because he had studied history and believed people would remember the Jews no more than they had remembered the Armenians. To not actively protest or attempt to stop a genocide or any other crime against humanity is condoning it and setting a precedent for the future.
2.) First of all, I would try to make the genocide in Darfur as publicized as possible. World media attention and the potential of a public scandal serves as a powerful encouragement to governments not dedicated in bringing the perpetrators of a genocide to justice. For example, during the Rwandan genocide, when the patients of the Red Cross were attacked and killed by groups associated with the Rwandan government. When the murder reached world news, the government was so ashamed that they made it policy to leave all the Red Cross alone.
Whatever actions the ICC should be responsible for taking in response to crimes against humanity are unfortunately severely limited by the lack of real power the courts hold. The courts can make charges against a war criminal like Ali Kushayb, but they still lack the power to force Sudan to give him up for a trial. What the ICC should be focused on is building an international coalition of countries who can exert influence in Sudan and others areas where overwhelming evidence suggest crimes against humanity are being committed.
In such a situation I would at first find which countries have influence in the region. In the case of Sudan, two of the countries largest trading partners are Russia and China. Through the use of incentives (monetary or otherwise) China and Russia might be persuaded to exert economic pressure on Sudan. It is one thing for the ICC to make empty threats, it really provides no reason for Sudan to reform. Things would become far more real for the Sudanese government if they felt that their inaction would lose them the support of two vital economic power houses, Russia and China. I think the fear of an economic recession would force the Sudanese government to begin making real headway in the trials of war criminals like Ali Kushayb.
1) The responsibility of an international body to intervene in situations where crimes of humanity occur or the legal system abuses its citizens is high; they should intervene if they can and if it has a chance of improving the situation. An international body is one step up from a government of a country. Therefore, it must take on the responsibility of watching out for all those under its own inferiors. Unfortunately, international bodies don’t feel the obligation to watch out for everyone, but mostly only for what their benefit is in terms of the international community. The situations in which I think an international body should act would be situations in which it is clearly immoral, etc., to commit an act and either the government is the perpetrator or the government refuses to hold the perpetrator to task.
2) If I worked for the ICC and wanted to verity that the Sudanese government and legal system was taking the role of bringing criminals to justice seriously I would investigate thoroughly the importance of the genocidal leaders/other leaders and their importance to the government. I would also look at the history of charging criminals and whether those who are clearly guilty have been charged or whether they have been allowed to do as they please, because their support or other characteristic is important to the government. There also must be some sort of overlooking on continued progress. There must be representatives physically seeing evidence of the Sudanese government making a true effort to bring criminals to justice (instead of just taking the government on its word). It is not enough to have a paper trail saying the ICC and the Sudanese government did something; something must concretely happened and be evidenced.
1. I believe that the responsibility of an international body is to make sure people who commit crimes against humanity and who plan a mass atrocity to be brought to justice. However, the ICC can only bring any accused before the international court if the legal system of a country fails. Based on the New York Times article, I felt it was a strange move to trade in a tribal leader in exchange for Al Kushayb. The ICC or even the UN has the right to move in to judge Al Kushayb even if the leadership of the Sudan refuses. When it is blantantly obvious that the country is lenient over the judging of criminals who violated international law or take over judging the criminal if the country fails to do so.
2. If I worked for the ICC and had to verify if the Sudanese government and legal system was doing its job, I would first bring up the issue amoung an international body, like the United Nations. I would seek the aid of the international body in order to negotiate with the Sudanese government to make sure they were taking the role of bringing the perpetrators of the Darfur genocide to justice. If the country fails to comply, I would ask for the aid of the UN Peacekeepers to find such criminals and bring them to the international court.
1. I think that an international body is definitly required to step in and intervene, especially when there are specific groups and organizations that try to prevent acts of genocide and crimes against humanity. A foreign body should intervene in any situation where a government is systematically segregating any group of people as a minimum. It should especially interevene when acts of genocide are occuring, just like what is happening in the Sudan. World powers, such as the United States and China, should stop supporting the governement of Sudan, which major companies such as Fidelity have been doing for the past couple of years.
2. If I were a part of the ICC, I would insist that I sit in on one of the trials and oversee the process. Because the government is so "sure" that they have everything under control with the arrests and trying, I, again, would oversee some of the arrests, but not step in until I was absolutely sure that the government was not taking it seriously. In that case, I would call for the UN to step in and make sure that actions are completed.
1.) I definitely believe that there is a responsibility of an international body to intervene when crimes against humanity continue to occur. In this specific situation, the leaders/government/police are not effectively cooperating with or aiding the International Criminal Court in prosecuting the major leaders of the genocide in Darfur. The Sudanese government is not trying in any means to help end the genocide. In this situation, the International Criminal Court, or any other international body should be able to intervene. During the Holocaust, no country intervened and many countries remained idle during the mass murder. Considering how awful and horrific the Holocaust turned out to be, I believe that people/countries now should be able to learn from that and realize that the international body should act with force against these acts.
2.) If I worked for the International Criminal Court, I would want to personally go to Sudan and speak with the government about whether they are seriously bringing criminals to justice. However, this action is a lot more difficult to act upon than it is said. I believe that the lack of education and knowledge on something as important and drastic as a genocide is the main reason why the Sudanese government officials are not taking criminal trials seriously. I think that the public as a whole needs to intervene and make sure that the Sudanese government understands how horrific and awful the crimes against humanity really are.
Sebastian Yen
An international body should alert the nation which crimes against humanity occur in and let them know the consequences of such actions, and apply pressure to the nation to comply in action to stop such crimes. If a nation is not able or unwilling to stop crimes against humanity outside action should be taken to stop the crimes. Initially they should probably negotiate and try to deal with the problem peacefully, but if that doesn't work I think that military action is necessary. I think that it is best if a nation is able to resolve its own conflicts but the amount of time they should be able to do so should definitely not be very long. The international body should intervene in openly violent crimes, it is harder to say if they should try to cultural or social divides that lead to segregation or discrimination. Although these types of behavior often lead to violence, trying to interfere with such often deep rooted issues often exacerbates problems.
I would place some investigators of the ICC to further learn about the situation. It is hard from the outside to say what ones true intentions really are. I don't think that full cooperation should be necessary, it is evident that the Sudanese government is not successfully ending conflicts in Darfur and requires outside help. Despite the government actually wanting to bring justice or not, if the ICC is willing to issue warrants, then they should also be willing to go through with arresting the criminals
1) An international justice shouldn't only be there to judge people after they've comitted all the crimes they want to commit. They should step in and stop any crimes against humanity that they see happening, since if nothing is done about it, then they'll keep happening. I don't even really think that they should ask the country involved if they can take the criminals-- they should just do it, unless it would obviously cause a major war.
2) First of all, I don't really understand why there's a law against intervening with a country that isn't bringing the perpetrators to justice. Obviously, in Nazi Germany, they country wouldn't have taken any officials to jail for war crimes, because to them, they weren't war crimes. The ICC should demand that they either gain custody of the people they arrested, or se with their own eyes proof that they are being tried in courts that aren't corrupt.
1) I think that whenever some form of genocide or crimes against humanity are being committed, and the country they are being committed in is either unwilling or unable to help, it is the responsibility of the international community to intervene. If there are instances of mass killings, or one group of people being targeted by another, the international body needs to step in a put a stop to it as soon as possible.
2)If I worked for the ICC and it was my responsibilty to make sure that the Sudanese government and legal system was taking the role of bringing criminals to justice seriously, I would try to go there myself to see what the situation was. It is difficult for governments to turn their own people in, and it is for this reason that I think the only way to get what you want is not by talking but by doing. I would go and talk to the leaders of that nation to make sure they understood what needed to be done, and also to see if intervention was needed because the government was actually the one commiting the crimes.
I think that it is certainly the responsibility of an international body to intervene when crimes against humanity are occurring elsewhere. When a country does not take action on human right issues and does not do anything for the good of their people, whether it be because of a corrupt government or because of the mere incapability of the citizens to act, then other countries need to take the reins. Just because a legal system allows this abuse of human rights, does not mean that people should accept it and definitely does not mean that other countries should become bystanders turning a blind eye. This also encourages crimes against humanity. Although setbacks such as opposing universe of obligations may make intervening more difficult, it is important that other nations step up and punish the people committing atrocities.
If I worked for the ICC, I would first bring up the issue to an international body, especially the neighboring countries that have any influence. Awareness is such a large factor in preventing such crimes against humanity. Even now, I don’t feel that we’re doing everything that we can to assist the Darfur cause. After doing so, I would get the international body to discuss with the Sudanese government to ensure that they were doing all that they could to bring the perpetrators of the Darfur genocide to justice. People need to be more educated about what is going on. It’s astonishing how many people don’t take any interest in the Darfur genocide. Their lack of knowledge has a huge effect on why the Sudanese government officials are not succeeding with the criminal trials.
1. The responsibility of an international group or groups is to engage in and unite as one. Their job is to try and help the people being persecuted or attacked by a group of hateful individuals. The UN is a good example of an organization that should step in and help the persecuted Sudanese. The UN needs to send in troops to act against the Janjaweed militia. Just positioning troops in Chad will not work. The UN needs to take it a step further. A situation an international group should act upon is the mass killings of one particular group or groups. Another situation is a crisis between two countries that could explode into a war. The international group should intervene and prevent the possible war.
2. If I worked for the ICC I would take the first flight to Sudan. I would march right up to the head police chief and ask him if he was brining these criminals to justice. I would ask if I could watch how they would execute this objective. That is if they are actually doing anything productive in finding these criminals. The problem is the Janjaweed militia is in fact Muslim and the government in the north is Muslim. They are protecting each other. The Janjaweed will not attack the government and the government will not turn them in to the ICC. The thing is if I am killed on Sudanese soil them my country would act against Sudan, possibly a war. The point being is I would want answers and I would want action to be taken.
International Country do have the responsibility to take action when crimes against humanity continue to take place or if the government is corrupt itself. It does, though, need to be wary of the actions it takes, for they may create more violence and only worsen the problem. When aide is not wanted by the government or the majority, then it is really hard to give it all. They will try and refuse and even sabotage the group's aide. So I think the most effective measure the group can take is trying to cooperate with the government to improve the situation of the country. When this doesn't work they can't resort to threats or more restraints, as this could cause the government or whatever group that is committing the atrocities to speed up their actions, or commit them on a higher scale. When the Nazi's felt cornered they sped up their death processes, although this is in different circumstances, the same could happen. If the aid group doesn't have cooperation from the government it needs to take swift and forceful control over the government. Thus, from there it can at least directly address the problem. If the government is willing to aid, then they need to help the government as much as possible, without creating too much violence, which is a very delicate task.
2. To make sure the government takes actions to stop the atrocities, I would definitely publicize the events. This way the whole world would know and the perpetrators wouldn't be able to hide in our ignorance. It would force action on the government's part of another group to end the atrocities, as they would, or at least should, outrage the by standing world. It would also be nice to have investigators to work in the country to figure out the extent of corruption and actions being taken.
International countries should definitely be held responsible for stopping mass atrocity in any countries. Especially if their powers are evidently stronger than those of the country committing the crimes. I'm assuming the ICC was created solely to deal with situations such as this and if they do not act upon them and stop them from occurring, it is a useless organization. It is also part of their responsibility to prevent things from happening again and taking the appropriate steps of punishment.
2.If i were part of the ICC and faced with this situation, I would personally show up and take actions from there. These would include things such as editing their plans of actions for the criminals and ensuring that they give the proper punishment for each crime. Then I would stay and make sure that they follow through with their actions and before leaving, make sure the Sudanese government knows what to do incase an instance such as this occurs again. Whether in their country or not, they will be able to deal with it.
1. From my perspective, I believe that it is the duty of an international body to intervene and take control of a drastic situation. Such events as the darfur genocide and the given article is an example. In my own opinion it is intolerable for a country not to face punishment for murderous actions. I also believe that an international body should intervene when a country's own government cannot control its people. However, if a country is undergoing a massive problem, such as the Great Depression(near the time of the Holocaust), it would be understandable if a country did not take any action.
2. Personally, I would get involved in the Sudanese government and learn what their methods are in bringing criminals to justice and fix the "holes" in their justice system. I would also witness a trial and personally inform the ICC that the Sudanese government is taking criminals seriously.
1. The responsibiliy of an international body when crimes againest humanity occur PERIOD is to intervene. The responsibility is even greater when there's proof of a corrupt and neglectful government, or if the crimes continue over a long period of time. There should be immediate action whether it is political or military because to have knowledge of atrocities and the suffering of people and to not do anything about it because a government claims they are handling it is wrong and that's the bottom line. There shouldn't be negotiating when human lives are hanging in the balance.
2. I would push for there to be international laws stating that NOT intervening is a crime. Honestly, it's disgusting for people to sit back and watch a country's people suffer and be picked off one by one because it's unlawful to step in. It's like the world is in a giant grocery store and Darfur is being hit by its mother over and over again and the rest of the countries of the world are the terrified shoppers who aren't brave enough to make the mother to stop. Knowing about abuse automatically gives you a responsibility to end it.
If a country is not doing anything to help it's people, other countries and the ICC need to step in. It's not about the country anymor it's about humanity. Others in the world should not stand by and watch, they should meet with the leaders and if they are fighting against humanity other countries need to take those leaders out.To make sure the Sudanese government was doing their job and I'd go with a secret team of people and figure out what's going on.
1. I think that an international body is responsible to help a country when crimes against humanity occur against its citizens. However, I think that the countries that get involved have to be sure that everything is alright in their own countries before they volunteer to help out others. It is not an obligation to help but I think if mass atrocities are occurring and another country is aware of the situation, they should do everything they can to help out.
2. If I worked for the ICC I would make it a point to conduct investigations that show the atrocities that were happening in Darfur. I would try to prove to them that something more drastic can be done and it is possible. The problem is that people are perfectly aware of what is going on but they just do not know how to act on it. Dealing with people who commit mass murders against people of their own country is a difficult situation to deal with. I would try to help the government to find a way to bring more justice when carrying out consequences against these people.
Post a Comment