Sorry for all of those not in the H block class, but this post pertains to today guest speaker, Professor Naomi Roht-Arriaza. She talked about the legal work behind declaring, proving and defining genocide and crimes against humanity. More importantly to my post, she explained the formation and structure of the International Criminal Court, and went over the pros and cons of it's existance and the courts limitations.
According to Professor Roht-Arriaza, there are 4 cases currently in session - political leaders in Uganda, Darfur, The Central African Republic, and The Democratic Republic of Congo. Of these 4 cases, only one of the offenders has been apprehended and jailed during the trial. Therefore most of the people on trial for these humanitarian crimes are still free and for the most part aren't fleeing/ hiding. This is because the court doesn't possess the power or have the physical ability to actually arrest the perpetrators and the court's memeber nations can't reasonably go into Darfur and "kidnap" a political figure. There in lies the problem, The ICC and UN along with most other multinational organizations lack the ability to enforce rulings, decisions and policies. If the UN were to attempt an invasion of Darfur to stop the genocide, whose troops would be sent in? America's? We probabaly wouldn't concent. China? No. The same response would occur for all UN member nations.
So my question is do you believe that these multinational organizations will ever be effective without a military and what do you propose these organizations should/can do about there lack of enforcement? Can the UN or ICC ever have a police/militant force?
8 comments:
It has been proved time and again that the UN is useless when it comes to enforcing its decisions without the support of major countries (such as the US). The UN strongly dissaproved of the Iraq war, but it was powerless in the face of US military and economic might. The same situation is happening in Darfur because no one wants to sacrifice their own troops for the cause and everyone has their excuses.
The solution to this is tricky. I think it should be required that upon entering the UN every country must pledge some number of troops or resources that can be used in situations like Darfur. I don't think the UN could ever have its own police/militant force because who would be in it? Everyone belongs to a country (except for Ms. Finn's friend named Friend and his friends, though technically he is still from the US). Instead, its militant force would be comprised of the required donation from each country.
I agree with Jordan, the UN has a long track record of failing to enforce its own referendums without the support of a major superpower. The 5 countries that have permanent veto power have been reluctant to get into situations that do not specificly affect them. So to answer your question BJ, no the UN probably will never be affective without a superpower military behind them. The standard UN brigade of one dozen Belgium peacekeepers don't really make much of a difference
I agree with Jordan, but I also wonder from where the resources to equip the UN's army would come. Individual countries would probably not be quick to volunteer resources. Also, how many troops would each country contribute: would it be according to size, economic state, one set number per country, etc...
I also agree with Jordan, and think that her idea is a very good one. It would be too complicated to create a separate UN or ICC force. Requiring a militant force from each party of the UN or ICC would make the most sense, and of course, as katie said, with regards to the country's size and economic means.
Also, in the greater picture, I think that the countries who are in the UN, especially those 5 on the security council, need to make it a priority to send troops to places like Darfur that are sorely in need of a militant force. As Jordan said, it is obvious the the UN needs reinforcement, and if a country is willing to be a part of the UN, then military assistance needs to be a part of that commitment. As is the case with Sudan, if the security council has declared that Sudan needs to be restrained, then there should be an obligation to help out, and if countries do not feel obligated of their own accord, then they should be required to.
I agree that Jordan's idea could be successful if properly implemented but at the same time I wonder if donating troops were to be a requirement upon entering into the UN, then would many countries still be willing to join?
Realistically, I dont know if countries will still want to join. Theoretically, they really should be. It seems hypocritical to want to be part of the UN, but refuse to send troops to enforce the decisions of the UN.
I think countries would still be willing to join. There is a 'safety in numbers' kind of thing that is always appealing. The UN provides countries with a say in international law and international trade agreements, which is very valuable. There must be some reason why this isn't required. Any ideas?
In response to Jordan's question, I think that the UN can't realistically expect countries that are struggling to deal with invaders or don't have internal stability to contribute troops to an international body that will send them wherever it likes. In theory, they'd still be willing to join because the UN would then help them with their situation, but because the UN has been rather inept intervening in countries, they'd still be skeptical. I guess the UN values having as many member-nations as possible over having a large intervention force.
Post a Comment