Umm, No.

by Kevin Jon Heller

Okay, I admit it.  The ICC is a failure.  As Raj Kannappan insightfully notes at the Washington Times, its botched prosecution of Milosevic proves it:

Although the International Criminal Court (ICC) was established with the promise of bringing to justice a host of international criminals, the Court has fallen short of delivering on that promise.

Eleven years ago, on February 12, 2002, the International Criminal Court (ICC) began its trial of Slobodan Milosevic. The former Serbian and Yugoslav president, charged with genocide and war crimes in Bosnia, Croatia, and Kosovo, chose to serve as his own attorney throughout the painfully prolonged trial, which ended abruptly on March 11, 2006 when a heart attack killed the “Butcher of the Balkans.”

Now, you might object that, in fact, the ICTY prosecuted Milosevic, not the ICC.  To that, I respond “whatever.”  If the ICC didn’t want to be confused by a right-winger who can’t bother to type “Milosevic and ICC” into google, it shouldn’t have put the initials “IC” in its name.

An old tip of the fedora to Mark Kersten.

http://opiniojuris.org/2013/02/15/umm-no/

3 Responses

  1. Kevin, I agree that this is a careless mistake.  However, the writer is a junior at Cornell and this article is part of the Washington Times’ communities section (meaning probably no editors). So I hesitate to smear the entire “right wing” with the mistake in this article. It’s the equivalent of a blog post by a college student who should have known better.  But let’s not make more of it than it is. 

  2. Fair enough; I didn’t realize the communities section was unmoderated.  But I wasn’t describing right-wingers in general; I was referring to the author, who is the head of the Cornell College Republicans.  He is indeed a right-winger, as a simple google search — the kind he’s obviously not capable of — makes clear.  I’ve amended the post.

  3. His next piece will be more ambitious and thus inform us that international law (or what is virtually the same thing, ‘global legalism’) except, perhaps–and only then on occasion–international economic law that is subservient to the axioms of neoliberalism insofar as it at the same time serves “American” interests (US interests intrinsicially worthy of or deserving to trump all other state interests, such ‘interest(s)’ being the dominant explanatory causal behavior in all behavior, individual and collective), is poorly written utopian fiction.

Trackbacks and Pingbacks

  1. There are no trackbacks or pingbacks associated with this post at this time.