It was my honor this past week to accept an invitation to visit Harvard
University. More specifically, I visited Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School and
its Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, both of which are teaching programs and
doing research that coincide with areas of investigation included in my latest
book, War: A Crime Against Humanity. These
areas include ways to reform and improve the United Nations and the
International Criminal Court (ICC), as a means of making them more effective in
establishing and maintaining world peace; strategies to bolster and protect the
rule of law, democratic values, and human and civil rights; tactics for
preventing torture and methods for imparting peace education.
In other words, through these department sections—and the brilliant
scholars teaching in them—Harvard is practicing what I consider the only way to
find a road toward world peace and toward the worldwide prohibition of war:
namely, educating for peace.
I was pleased to be asked to take part in a special event within the
framework of a program organized by the university’s Kennedy School: two
intensive days of study and analysis to mark the end of an extraordinary course
entitled The Politics of International
Law: The International Criminal Court and the UN Security Council. The aim
of this program/course was to cast light on the roles and effects of the UN
Security Council and the ICC, within the political landscape in which they both
operate today, and to discover how these factors affect the functions of
specific areas of international law.
The program was coordinated by renowned international affairs experts
and educators Dr. Kathryn Sikkink and Dr. Luis Moreno Ocampo.
Left to right: Roberto Vivo, Kathryn Sikkink and
Luis Moreno Ocampo.
|
Holder of master’s and doctoral degrees from Columbia University, Dr.
Sikkink is a human rights policy and advanced studies professor at Harvard’s
Kennedy School, as well as being a renowned author. In 2012, she won the John
F. Kennedy Book Award for The Justice
Cascade, a brilliant work that delves into the origins and effects of human
rights trials, and which served as one of many high-level scholarly sources for
my own War: A Crime Against Humanity.
She is also the author of Ideas and
Institutions: Developmentalism in Brazil and Argentina (1991) that explains
the influence of Developmentalism on the fate of two of Latin America’s largest
economies, and of Mixed Signals: Human
Rights Policy and Latin America (2004), in which she recounts how
Washington’s callous anticommunist stance of the 1970s tarnished the reputation
of the United States throughout Latin America by associating it with tyrannical
and often brutally murderous regimes. She warns that the current war against
terrorism could very well lead to a repetition of these past mistakes unless Americans
insist that the struggle against terrorism be conducted within a framework of
respect for human rights and for the rule of law.
Dr. Luis Moreno Ocampo is a world renowned human rights attorney, having
served in his native Argentina as Assistant Special Prosecutor for the
unprecedented trials of former military junta members when democracy returned
to that country in the 1980s. More recently, he served for nine years as the
founding Chief Prosecutor for the International Criminal Court. He is
Co-Professor at Harvard for the Kennedy School’s course entitled The Politics of International Law: The
International Criminal Court and the UN Security Council.
Luis collaborated closely with me while my team and I were gathering
research for War: A Crime Against
Humanity, guiding me skillfully through the complex maze of international
law and politics, areas in which he is exceedingly well-versed. He also
introduced me to international law personalities who were instrumental in
helping me better understand how worldwide arms sales, acts of aggression, war
crimes and human rights violations have played a fundamental role in creating a
worldwide culture of war that ignores the basic tenets of democracy and rule of
law, while undermining efforts to establish lasting world peace.
The sessions I took part in were packed with a series of fascinating
presentations, debates and surveys on some of the most compelling of current
legal issues. For example, one of the issues discussed was whether there is a genuine
possibility open for the ICC to intervene in two of the most controversial
conflicts of the day: Syria and Palestine.
Besides participating in the program itself, I also had an opportunity
to meet with a group of Harvard students, distribute copies of my book among
them and engage in an enthusiastic one on one discussion session with them. My
book was the reason behind my being invited to take part in this event, since
part of its thesis is a call for UN Security Council reform and for a strong
and independent International Criminal Court with extensive police powers that
would permit it to be truly effective in the investigation and trial of not
just some but all war crimes, atrocities, human rights abuses and international
acts of aggression.
Later, Professor Douglas A. Johnson invited me to visit the Kennedy
School’s Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, where he is Faculty Director, a
post he has held since 2013. Professor Johnson took up this post after serving
for 24 years as Executive Director of the international Center for the Victims
of Torture (CVT). During his tenure there, the CVT provided clinical and other
services to more than 23,000 victims of torture at the organization’s facilities
in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Guinea, Jordan, Liberia, Sierra Leone and
the United States.
The Center—founded in 1999, through a gift from Kennedy School alumnus
and renowned entrepreneur/philanthropist Gregory Carr—is guided by a commitment
to making human rights principles central to the formulation of good public
policy in the United States and throughout the world.
During my visit, Professor Johnson personally explained to me the
function of a Tactical Map formulated by the Carr Center as a means of ending
torture worldwide. In War: A Crime
Against Humanity, I compare the establishment of a path toward the
prohibition of war with progress made in the past century toward outlawing
torture entirely. It was fascinating for me, then, to see how people like
Professor Carr are inventing practical means of making such worldwide bans
effective. The Center’s dual mission is training human rights practitioners to
think and act more strategically, and drawing on the best research in the social
sciences to create viable human rights solutions.
On the second day of my Harvard visit, I joined Kennedy
Center students in receiving a sneak preview of a soon to be published report on the effectiveness of the International Criminal Court as it stands today. Some of the findings of the report were presented to us by Harvard University’s Beth Simmons, one of the two authors of the report, whose co-researcher was Hyeran Jo of Texas A&M University.
Center students in receiving a sneak preview of a soon to be published report on the effectiveness of the International Criminal Court as it stands today. Some of the findings of the report were presented to us by Harvard University’s Beth Simmons, one of the two authors of the report, whose co-researcher was Hyeran Jo of Texas A&M University.
With Professor Beth Simmons following her presentation. |
In her absorbing presentation, Professor Simmons explained common
perceptions regarding the ICC, including the idea that, in its current form,
the Court has so little power to prosecute aggression, war crimes and other human
rights abuses and atrocities—since, basically, countries and leaders can choose
whether or not to recognize the ICC’s jurisdiction—that it cannot possibly act
as a deterrent. And underscoring this perception is the fact that the Court has
only managed to hand down three convictions in the past thirteen years.
The breakthrough in Simmons and Jo’s report—soon to be published in the Journal of International Organization—is
that their research has developed hard evidence that reality does not bear out
this perception and that, in fact, the ICC is already acting as a deterrent. Although
its conviction record alone might seem to belie its effectiveness, this latest
research tends to show that the mere threat of an ICC investigation has managed
to get not only actual governments but also some other political movements to
clean up their human rights acts.
On a final note—and once again, my most heartfelt thanks to Harvard’s
Kennedy School and Carr Center for this opportunity to make direct contact with
some of the finest peace educators in the world—I’m anxious to see Simmons and
Jo’s report once published, since their findings are exciting for researchers
like myself who are seeking a stronger ICC. The idea that even today, in its
current deficiently empowered state, the Court is able to improve the quality level
of worldwide human rights, is a major point in favor of campaigns to broaden
its powers and to push principal world leaders like (especially) the United States,
China and Russia to fully recognize it and submit to its authority. In the end,
if they had nothing to hide, they would have nothing to fear from the
International Criminal Court and their reticence toward not only recognizing
but fully empowering the ICC stands as a
testimony to their failure to adhere to the fundamental rules of respect for
human and civil rights and for the inviolability of international law.
Comments
Post a Comment