The "Court of the Future"
The International Criminal Court, called the "Court of the Future", has indicted suspects it thinks most likely to be sacrificed as culprits in the ongoing Darfur genocide without really expecting them to be brought to trial in the hopes that it will "limit their movement" and send a message.
- "The ICC did the right job at getting individuals who can be sacrificed by the Sudanese government, but who at the same time have a significant degree of culpability," says Alex de Waal, a Darfur expert and program director at the Social Science Research Council in New York.
- The ICC has often been termed a "court of the future" for its prospective role as an arbiter of international justice. ... Washington's tacit approval is significant, experts say, since the US has not participated in the ICC since it was established in 1998. "The US position [to allow Darfur investigations to go forward] is a turning point institutionally," says Diane Orentlicher of American University's Washington College of Law, "since it reflects a willingness of the US to accept the jurisdiction of the court."
- Sudan says it will not extradite those indicted at The Hague. Still war crimes experts argue that international courts such as the Rwanda and Yugoslavia tribunals eventually proved to build moral and strategic arguments against those charged, which eventually limited their ill-doings and provided a basis for rebuilding the society. International tribunals, which rarely have much clout, have faced a steady uphill climb over the years, with skepticism if not cynicism about their effectiveness a widely shared feeling among politicians and powerbrokers. Yet they have continued to develop.
- The inability of the court to travel in Darfur worries some international human rights legal scholars, who say the evidence should be gathered from the site of the war crimes themselves.
The willingness of the "Court of the Future" to try such persons as they think will be sacrificed in absentia, without any realistic prospect of actually seizing them simply to make a political point illustrates more than anything else the perverted nature of NGO "justice". These dramatics may be all about seizing authority and power by establishing jurisdiction, but they have nothing to do with alleviating the ongoing genocide in Darfur nor even bringing its perpetrators to justice. They may be about creating hundreds of highly paid jobs, junkets, media opportunities and book deals for the human rights aristocracy, but they have nothing to do with morality. Let them keep their money and power, but don't ever let them lay claim to virtue.