Well it was 60 years ago today
BERLIN (Reuters) - In early February, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was having second thoughts about coming to a prestigious annual security conference in Munich.
He was not worried about facing German ire over the U.S.-led war in Iraq. His reluctance had to do with a criminal complaint which accused him of war crimes in connection with abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and threatened him with arrest if he came to Germany.
The German federal prosecutor threw out the complaint before the conference began, and Rumsfeld showed up.
But the episode underscored how the world of international criminal justice has changed since the United States and its World War Two allies came together to prosecute Nazi leaders at the Nuremberg trials, which opened 60 years ago on Nov. 20.
The United States was the driving force behind Nuremberg, which resulted in the hanging deaths of 10 top Nazis, and it also played a key role in setting up the more recent Yugoslavia and Rwanda tribunals.
Its backing for those courts in turn laid the groundwork for trials on atrocities committed as far afield as Sierra Leone, East Timor and Cambodia.
But now, legal scholars say, the United States has begun to see itself as singularly vulnerable to the system of international law whose foundations it laid.
"The system of international criminal justice that was put in place with the clout of the United States is now coming back to haunt it," said Philippe Sands, a professor of law at University College London.
In 2002, Washington withdrew its signature from a treaty on the International Criminal Court (ICC) -- the world's first permanent forum for trying war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and crimes of aggression -- for fear American citizens could be targeted.
At the time, President George W. Bush said the ICC was "unaccountable". Officials in his administration said it was wrong to see the court as an evolutionary step beyond Nuremberg or a logical extension of the Yugoslavia and Rwanda tribunals.
Experts say Washington has also become suspicious about other developments in international law -- like the idea of "universal jurisdiction" that allowed a Spanish judge to secure the 1998 arrest of former Chilean strongman Augusto Pinochet in Britain.
NEW AGE
Ruth Wedgwood, a professor of law at Johns Hopkins University, who has advised the U.S. government on international law and was an independent expert for the Yugoslavia tribunal, believes the United States has good reason to be leery.
She drew a sharp contrast between Nuremberg, where the evidence of crimes against humanity was a "simple call" and a new age where advances in technology, the rise of human rights activism and the role of the United States as the world's self-appointed policeman, have muddied the water.
"The United States has a lot of people stationed overseas, it plays a unique security role and with that comes unique vulnerabilities," she said.
"In almost every war someone will commit a war crime, burn a village or rape a woman. The hard part is mobilising the international community for those instances that are unique."
That ad hoc approach, which draws on the legacy of Nuremberg and has proven itself time and again over the past 15 years, looks to be the way forward for Washington.
The United States remains a strong backer of tribunals that are limited in time, territory and focus and do not risk threatening its own interests. Most recently, the United States has played a key role in helping Iraqis prepare the trial of Saddam Hussein.
Without the United States, however, legal experts say the ICC looks like a hollow body and the future for international courts is less than clear 60 years after Nuremberg.
"The international courts system is booming to such an extent that contradictions are emerging," said Jan Wouters, a professor of international law at the University of Leuven in Belgium.
"But I simply don't think its salutary for the further development of international law and international relations that the United States is outside a system it helped create."
He was not worried about facing German ire over the U.S.-led war in Iraq. His reluctance had to do with a criminal complaint which accused him of war crimes in connection with abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and threatened him with arrest if he came to Germany.
The German federal prosecutor threw out the complaint before the conference began, and Rumsfeld showed up.
But the episode underscored how the world of international criminal justice has changed since the United States and its World War Two allies came together to prosecute Nazi leaders at the Nuremberg trials, which opened 60 years ago on Nov. 20.
The United States was the driving force behind Nuremberg, which resulted in the hanging deaths of 10 top Nazis, and it also played a key role in setting up the more recent Yugoslavia and Rwanda tribunals.
Its backing for those courts in turn laid the groundwork for trials on atrocities committed as far afield as Sierra Leone, East Timor and Cambodia.
But now, legal scholars say, the United States has begun to see itself as singularly vulnerable to the system of international law whose foundations it laid.
"The system of international criminal justice that was put in place with the clout of the United States is now coming back to haunt it," said Philippe Sands, a professor of law at University College London.
In 2002, Washington withdrew its signature from a treaty on the International Criminal Court (ICC) -- the world's first permanent forum for trying war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and crimes of aggression -- for fear American citizens could be targeted.
At the time, President George W. Bush said the ICC was "unaccountable". Officials in his administration said it was wrong to see the court as an evolutionary step beyond Nuremberg or a logical extension of the Yugoslavia and Rwanda tribunals.
Experts say Washington has also become suspicious about other developments in international law -- like the idea of "universal jurisdiction" that allowed a Spanish judge to secure the 1998 arrest of former Chilean strongman Augusto Pinochet in Britain.
NEW AGE
Ruth Wedgwood, a professor of law at Johns Hopkins University, who has advised the U.S. government on international law and was an independent expert for the Yugoslavia tribunal, believes the United States has good reason to be leery.
She drew a sharp contrast between Nuremberg, where the evidence of crimes against humanity was a "simple call" and a new age where advances in technology, the rise of human rights activism and the role of the United States as the world's self-appointed policeman, have muddied the water.
"The United States has a lot of people stationed overseas, it plays a unique security role and with that comes unique vulnerabilities," she said.
"In almost every war someone will commit a war crime, burn a village or rape a woman. The hard part is mobilising the international community for those instances that are unique."
That ad hoc approach, which draws on the legacy of Nuremberg and has proven itself time and again over the past 15 years, looks to be the way forward for Washington.
The United States remains a strong backer of tribunals that are limited in time, territory and focus and do not risk threatening its own interests. Most recently, the United States has played a key role in helping Iraqis prepare the trial of Saddam Hussein.
Without the United States, however, legal experts say the ICC looks like a hollow body and the future for international courts is less than clear 60 years after Nuremberg.
"The international courts system is booming to such an extent that contradictions are emerging," said Jan Wouters, a professor of international law at the University of Leuven in Belgium.
"But I simply don't think its salutary for the further development of international law and international relations that the United States is outside a system it helped create."
posted by professor rat at 8:38 PM
<< Home