Brooke Wallace ICC Response

 Brooke Wallace

Prof. Shirk

International Politics

10 March 2022

    After reading the different arguments, I found that Elena Baylis made the strongest case for stronger national and regional justice systems. Her argument is centered around the fact that the ICC is only meant to play a limited role in the courts. The national courts should handle the crimes they are supposed to which, in turn, would allow the ICC to do its job and restore its original purpose. She suggests that only then will there be an effective change in the court system. Baylis also stresses the need for national and regional courts to assume a greater role in the prosecution of crimes. "The ICC was never meant to be the first responder for these situations". I agree with her that there are too many atrocities to expect one court to take on everything; it should be our last resort. The ICC does not serve to replace national courts. Instead, it is meant to complement the criminal justice system, yet in some African countries like Nigeria, it is the first system that is expected to respond to any type of war crime. If we bring the ICC into everything (even small-scale acts), it will become less effective and powerful in what it is destined to do.

    Another downfall of involving the ICC in everything is that the court itself is losing credibility. Now, people are reluctant to trust the ICC to get the job done because of how poorly it has handled cases that should have been convictions. There are some unfortunate failures of the International Criminal Court such as a shockingly low number of complete procurements. Overall, I totally agree with Baylis' argument that the international community should encourage national and regional courts to step up and take extra responsibility in order to protect/help rebuild the ICC.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Currency Manipulation of the 21st Century: China and the US

                           Currency Manipulation of the 21st Century: China and the US Now more than ever, countries feel tempted to engage in a ‘currency war’ and go back and forth trying to devalue their currency in efforts to encourage exports. The two largest economies, China and the United States, seem to be in a long, bitter trade dispute as the trade relationship is significantly imbalanced. From tariffs to currency, trade tensions are clearly escalating with both sides slapping substantial tariffs on each other’s goods. Currency manipulation (arguably the world’s most protectionist international economic policy) refers to the concept of countries artificially lowering the value of their currency to achieve an unfair competitive advantage (Forbes). The U.S. Dollar is the most popular reserve, and everyone wants a stake in our economy. Unlike many other countries, China does not ha...
Read more

Kevin Yin's Blog #5

  To be honest, it has been a long time for me – a Chinese social media and news reader, not hearing any information about the follow-up of the Ukraine and Russia crisis on Chinese websites. Yes, you can’t find a lot of information about the invasion on Chinese news websites. If you do, then the news may be connected with the following reaction of European countries towards Russia, like the sanctions and changes in foreign policies. Some of the news writers did actually defame some of Ukrainian Defiance for some bad activities. It is quite clear for other people to understand the attitude of China towards the crisis. How about other Asian countries? Although I don’t want to be mean at this point, I have to indicate that the attitudes of many “second-tier power” countries are not that genuine. If we rationally consider the situation and the nature of politics, we must admit that it is not clever to think in either only a humanitarian angle or only a political angle. We need to comb...
Read more

Ciara: blog post #5

  The fear of an action might be powerful enough to scare off another party, or cause them to fear the lengths others are willing to go. As Kenneth Waltz argues in “Why Iran Should Get the Bomb: Nuclear Balancing Would Mean Stability” allowing more countries to obtain nuclear defense would put international relations at a general deterrence from the nuclear wars that could start. Deterrence is a strategy that can be used in order to prevent another party from undertaking an action through coercion. Many times this works as a method to keep two parties from destroying each other, or to allow a smaller army to scare off a larger one to show the lengths they would go. Nuclear deterrence can be the ultimate way of scaring off other parties as it is the strongest weapon that could potentially cause complete destruction. Even if a nuclear power is relatively small and compared to other nuclear powers would seem less threatening, once they cross the threshold they are using deterrence (Wa...
Read more