”But the larger problem is that Mr. Ocampo* has made his court’s legal process part of the political process. If countries aren’t signatories to the ICC’s treaty (and most, including Syria, aren’t), then the only route to justice is for the United Nations Security Council to refer them to the court. That’s what happened last year in Libya.”
As I demonstrated in my last post, most world countries _are_ signatories to the ICC’s treaty. Nervous superpowers aren’t, and murderous regimes aren’t. But most of the world’s countries are. So that’s just a straight out misrepresentation.
But don’t bother people who make this kind of argument with facts. They’re somewhat obsessed with the idea that enforcement of international human rights laws should never be more than a theoretical exercise because dictators respond so much more to “please” and “thank you”.
I love the part of that quote above where the author says “That’s what happened in Libya.” What gall! Last year, Gaddafi was strafing his own people. This year, Libya will have free elections and draw up a new constitution. Exactly where did the ICC strategy for justice go wrong? If this argument is right, Gaddafi should still be in power because the ICC makes it harder to convince dictators to voluntarily step down? Right? So how does one explain the real world’s variance with the “facts” of this argument?
Oh, but does it matter? When snuggly truthiness is a possibility, why bother with the truth? The real threat to the peace of the world doesn’t come from Middle Eastern dictators, it comes from…litigious Argentinians! Right. While you’re selling me stuff, do you have any bridges for sale in the New York City area?
* Incidentally, the gentleman’s family name is Moreno Ocampo, following the normal Spanish language conventions – his full name is Luis Moreno Ocampo, so that means his father’s last name is Moreno and his mother’s last name is Ocampo.