Recent Developments at the International Courts: A Cheat Sheet

Confused about recent developments in international criminal jurisprudence? Tired of excusing yourself to powder your nose when the cocktail chatter inevitably turns to the law of self-determination? Wishing you had some handy reference material that would enable you to sound like you've taken two to three advanced undergraduate level seminars on international law? Well, look no further; this is the blog post for you.

Below are summaries of four recent developments in international justice and some suggested beginner and advanced level pithy commentary to amaze your friends and colleagues with at your next social occasion. Try saying them in a fake British accent for increased impressiveness.

1. Naomi Campbell's testimony before the Special Court for Sierra Leone.

Supermodel Naomi Campbell finally showed up to Charles Taylor's war crimes trial yesterday to answer the question of whether Taylor gave her some diamonds in 1997. (Taylor's defense maintains that he never had possession of any blood diamonds.) Her answer: Yes, he did, but they were dirty.

JV level cocktail banter: "So he had time to clean off the blood, but not the dirt?"

Varsity caliber smartassery: "Taylor lied about not having diamonds? What's next, the news that his conversion to Judaism isn't for real either?"

2. The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia decision in the Duch case.

On July 26th, the Trial Chamber of ECCC handed down a verdict in its first trial. Kaing Guek Eav (known as "Duch"), the head of the S-21 prison (now known as Tuol Sleng), was found guilty of crimes against humanity as well as domestic crimes of murder and torture and sentenced to 35 years jail time. Because he has already been incarcerated for 11 years, and received a 5 year credit for unlawful detention, the sentence was reduced to 19 years. Initial reports suggest that victims are dissatisfied with what they perceive as an overly lenient sentence.

Sound informed: Ask "How will this impact the ECCC's second case, the trial of Khieu Samphan, Ieng Sary, Ieng Thirith and Nuon Chea? Will the Trial Chamber feel compelled to hand down a harsher sentence in that case to appease the victims? If so, what does this mean for the court's status as an independent judicial body?"

Sound obsessed: Redirect the conversation to the issue of marriages imposed by the Khmer Rouge. Point out that forced marriage is not included in the Tribunal's list of crimes against humanity, but could (should?) be added in the aftermath of the Special Court for Sierra Leone's groundbreaking convictions last year.

*For extra "I totally know what I'm talking about" points, remember that "Duch" is pronounced to sound like "doik" rather than "dutch." You're welcome.

3. The stay of proceedings and near-release of the defendant in the Thomas Lubanga case at the ICC.

Earlier this month the ICC's first case to go to trial hit another bump when the prosecutor's office (OTP) refused to comply with an order to disclose the identity of an intermediary who had helped them identify witnesses. The OTP alleged that disclosure would violate its obligation to protect witnesses. The judges of Trial Chamber I concluded a fair trial was no longer possible for Lubanga under these conditions and ordered a stay of proceedings, and subsequently, the defendant's release. The Appeals Chamber has suspended Lubanga's release pending a final decision of the Prosecution's appeal of the stay of proceedings. (On the theory that if they let him wander off now and then the trial is reopened they're probably going to have a tough time getting him to turn up.)

Smart stuff to say: "This is basically the same issue that resulted in a stay of proceedings in the case in 2008, when the prosecution withheld potentially exculpatory evidence. And didn't the Appeals Chamber refuse to allow Lubanga's release on the grounds that a solution would probably be worked out and they'd better hang on to him in the meantime? It's like déjà vu all over again..."

Double-plus-smart stuff to say: "There's no clear legal basis for the OTP's argument that disclosing the intermediary's identify would violate its obligation to protect witnesses. In fact, the Rome Statute requires that the protection of witnesses be managed in a manner that does not prejudice defendants' rights to a fair trial." (Hattip Kevin Jon Heller at Opinio Juris, who also argues that the OTP's protection obligation is subordinate to the Trial Chamber's and that there is therefore no justification for disobeying a witness protection-related order from the judges.)

4. The ICJ's Advisory Opinion on Kosovo's declaration of independence.

Last month the International Court of Justice issued an Advisory Opinion on the legality of Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence. The Court addressed itself to a very narrow question - whether Kosovo's declaration violated international law - and ruled that no, it did not.

International law punditry 101: "What does this mean for the referendum on the status of Southern Sudan in January?"

Advanced topics in territorial integrity: "Given that the Court didn't touch the issue of the legality of third party state recognition of the newly independent state, does this opinion really offer anything new in the way of guidance on the law of state sovereignty?"

(If we've said there's more after the jump, or you want to see comments, you should probably click here)

WTF Friday, 6/4/10

• Hadley Freeman of the Guardian does a nice job lampooning certain media outlets for giving Madonna credit for the release of the Malawian couple mentioned here. After a lot of soul searching I am finally able to accept that this one isn't satire. And still, as tinarussell pointed out to me, no one can seem to get it right that the couple is not two men, but a man and a transgender woman. A commenter and transgender activist named Natacha had to set Freeman straight.

• Worst/Best sentence of the day: "A founder of the Irish Republic, Eamon de Valera, famously idealized Ireland 70 years ago as an innocent land of saints and scholars, whose villages were joyous with the laughter of happy maidens. If he came back today he would be shocked to find that a village in Ireland is just as likely to contain a brothel, populated by sex slaves from Africa." (Via Feministing)

• So it seems as though the fashion police are working double time in Tehran. The interior minister has spoken of a "chastity plan" and women have been arrested for wearing short coats and even having sun tans. Maybe the "1 Million Shirts guy" can organize some sort of "Coppertone for Iran" initiative.

• Three Namibian women are suing the state for allegedly sterilizing them without their knowledge them because they are HIV positive. "The women say the doctors and nurses should have informed them properly about what was happening." I'd say so.

(If we've said there's more after the jump, or you want to see comments, you should probably click here)

WTF Friday, 5/21/10

• In a sad conclusion to a story touched on in our Places Not to Be Gay: Malawi Edition, a gay couple in Malawi has been sentenced to 14 years in prison for being, you guessed it, gay. Human rights groups are appealing the decision so let's hope this isn't actually the conclusion. Oh also no bail. Smh.*
  

• Look I'm not encouraging Mikhail Khodorkovsky to starve himself, but when you cancel a hunger strike after 24 hours, you really lose that option as a credible threat for the future. Just saying.

• More drama in the Campbell-Taylor-Farrow saga. Naomi Campbell may be subpoenaed to testify at Charles Taylor's trial as she allegedly received a diamond from him. This story basically seems true unless Mia Farrow, who says Campbell told her about the diamond and is willing to testify, is completely making it up. The more I write about this the more it feels like a weird dream.

• So looks like there's a new women's rights activist in town? (Via allAfrica).

*Correction. The couple is actually a male and a transgender woman. Thanks to tinarussell for directing me to this article. Sorry for the mistake and for taking so long to correct it. I will try to do better next time.

(If we've said there's more after the jump, or you want to see comments, you should probably click here)

WTF Friday, 4/30/10

• Mother Jones highlights a photo series by Jonathan Torgovnik featuring women who had children as a result of rape during the Rwandan genocide. Unfortunately, I don't feel like MJ's headline, "Can You Love a Child of Rape?," is really the right way to frame this. Doesn't posing the question that way place "not loving them" as the default, and "loving them" as the exception? Doesn't that make you kind of uncomfortable? Would really like to hear from our readers on this.
  

• Speaking of rape and eye-catching headlines (as we tend to do), there has got to be a better way to convey that there has been a lot of rape in the DRC than calling it the "rape capital of the world." I mean, shouldn't the UN have some sort of "special representative on sexual violence in conflict" who would handle these matters more delicately? Oh, they do? Oh, she said it? Cripes.

• Jeffrey Sachs has tweeted 36 times. In all these tweets, he has only specifically recommended following one person. That person is Christy Turlington. Huh.

• FP has a great piece called "The World’s Worst Immigration Laws." I find it interesting that Italy fines illegal immigrants while Japan pays them to leave. Wacky world we live in.

• Lastly, from the "forgone conclusion department," Bashir wins in a landslide.

(If we've said there's more after the jump, or you want to see comments, you should probably click here)

Africa, Land of Rape Poverty and Lions?

Over at ICTWorks, Wayan Vota is quite perturbed by the 2020 Shaping Ideas video about Jeffrey Sachs.



He suggests watching the video with the sound turned off:

"Did ya notice anything disconcerting? Like the juxtaposition of Sachs (and all the white people) sitting in very nice, even posh settings, but black people are filmed from a car in poverty settings. Does that mean we can take time and get face-to-face with whites, but best to stay in the car and drive by black people quickly?

And how can they speak of disconnected & impoverished while panning across Nairobi's skyline? Or focus on a flashing red light when showing the city? Are they saying we should stop urban growth? Maybe have more kids play with elephants?

Speaking of animals, what's up with the cameos of wild animals? Are they counted in global poverty numbers? Or does the cameraman feel that all of Africa is zebras and giraffes?"

C'mon readers, say it with us now: Africa, Land of....

(Hat Tip: Aid Watch)

(If we've said there's more after the jump, or you want to see comments, you should probably click here)

Help Us, Josh Groban, You're Our Only Hope!

We'd like to congratulate Mother Jones Senior Editor Dave Gilson on the in-depth investigative work that went into producing this magical map* of the "celebrity recolonization of Africa":

Gilson may see an Africa half-full, well on its way to the full celebrity recolonization that the Dark Continent has always dreamed of, but (eternal pessimists that we are) we can't help but see an Africa half-empty of desperately needed celebrity resources. And we know from the work of Nicholas Kristof, the Enough Campaign, Save Darfur, Invisible Children, and others that Africans unattended by celebrities will all die slow and painful deaths, often while being raped by lions.

Obviously, this is an incipient crisis of epic proportions, so we need to work fast. While nearly overwhelmed by the scale of this tragedy, Team Wronging Rights has sprung into action. Using our crack "looking at the map and counting things" methodology, we have identified the following countries in desperate need of a celebrity spokesperson: Western Sahara, Mauritania, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Plain Vanilla Guinea, Gabon, Other Congo, The Gambia, Niger, Chad, Zambia, Benin, Togo, Eritrea, Lesotho, and Swaziland.

In order to achieve Full Celebrification In Our Time, we recommend celebrities be allocated as follows:

Somalia: Johnny Depp, because the pirates will respect him. (As several alert readers pointed out, it's actually Eritrea, not Somalia, that lacks a celebrity. However, we think Depp is the right man for the job, so we recommend Clay Aiken be bumped over to Eritrea.)

The Gambia: Game (formerly "The Game") in the hopes that he can convince the country to drop the definite article as well.

Guineas 1 through 3: Josh Groban, on the theory that nothing papers over the memory of a gruesome massacre of political opponents in your capital city's football stadium like an arena concert by America's favorite singer-songwriter. (Sorry Guinea-Bissau, we know you have no particular history of slaughtering your opposition on the sites of major sporting events, but if you want to avoid confusion, you should probably go ahead and get a new name.)

Chad: Julianna Margulies, the currently-second-most-prominent-former-castmember-of-ER. Because if there's any force on earth more powerful than the fractious regional politics of Chad/Sudan, it's ER fans' eternal-springing hope that Margulies's Nurse Carol Hathaway will reunite with Clooney's Dr. Doug Ross. Seriously, would it be possible for the fighting to continue if peace could give those two lovebirds the chance to meet cute over a treaty-signing, realize that Doug should never have abandoned the lovely nurse and her twins, and ride off into a spinoff together? The answer is clearly no, not possible.

The Other Congo: To be shared evenly among all the least prominent members of famous Hollywood families (we're looking at you, Emilio Estevez and Lesser Baldwins). Because, let's face it, sometimes it sucks being The Other Congo.

Lesotho and Swaziland: Oprah, because she's already got South Africa covered, and is so wealthy that chances are good that she already owns those two tiny landlocked nations without even realizing it.

That leaves Western Sahara, Mauritania, Cameroon, Gabon, Niger, Zambia, Benin, and Togo still in desperate need of celebrities. We know you won't let them down: post your recommendations in the comments. (As usual, Lucky Charms-based awards will be available for feats of commenting awesomeness.)

*Note that the actual map is interactive and therefore infinitely more awesome and informative than the screengrab we've included here.

(If we've said there's more after the jump, or you want to see comments, you should probably click here)

In Which Pigs Fly, and I Defend Lindsay Lohan's New Trafficking Documentary

It's Passover this week, a time when our minds turn to thoughts of slavery and wine.

Speaking of which, did you hear that Lindsay Lohan made a documentary about child trafficking in India for BBC3?

This clip leaked online a few weeks ago, but journalists in the UK have apparently just gotten a look at the full-length documentary, and have wasted no time in tearing LiLo to ribbons. Here's Amelia Gentleman, in the Guardian:

"There are a lot of contenders for most uncomfortable moment in Lindsay Lohan's upcoming BBC documentary about child trafficking in India, but I think the bit that will have most viewers kicking their televisions is when Lohan is hugging a very young girl on her knee, listening to her describe a life spent begging on the streets of Calcutta.
The shaven-haired girl is explaining that her parents would beat her unless she went out every day to earn money, but it's hard to concentrate on what she's saying because what's happening behind her is so distracting. Lohan is rubbing her already-red eyes, spreading mascara around the place, twitching her eyebrows.
"Um. Um. Oh my God," the film star says, her lips wobbling uncontrollably. A disembodied hand pops into the screen to pass her a tissue. "Um. How did she feel? Um. How did they treat her?" she asks, beginning to sob.
The small girl turns to look at her in bemusement. The translator gives an embarrassed laugh and says to the girl: "She's crying for you. Why don't you comfort her?" So we watch as the puzzled child dutifully strokes Lohan's long mane of golden hair."

Xeni Jardin pronounced this a "celebrity advocacy fail," and BBC3 Controller Danny Mair was grilled on Britain's Radio 4 last week about his decision to use Lohan in the documentary.

But I have to say, I don't think it looks so bad. (Stop the presses: Wronging Rights is being less snarky than the rest of the internet about something!)

I only know what I've seen in the clip above, and read in Gentleman's article, but as far as I can tell, Lohan behaved as any interested, kind, and previously-uninformed person would have in that situation. Reading between the lines of Gentleman's eyebrow-wiggling and mascara-smearing prose, it sounds like Lohan, upon hearing the small child on her lap describe a life of exploitation and suffering, began to cry. And we're supposed to think this is a sign of what, exactly? Weakness of character? Crying when faced with tragedy is hardly a reaction limited to hard-partying starlets.

Likewise, I'm not inclined to pounce on Lohan for stumbling over her words a bit in the confrontation with the trafficker that's shown in the clip. Yes, it's hardly the case that only "the attractive ones" need to worry about being sexually abused, or forced into prostitution. But Lindsey Lohan isn't an expert in human trafficking, or women's rights. If she'd parroted the talking points perfectly, then we'd know that she'd been well coached. But as it was, she had an awkward, slightly weird, somewhat inaccurate conversation with a woman who admitted to selling children. At worst, that's an interesting thing to watch. And at best, it offers the similarly-uninformed viewer someone to identify with. (Hell, the informed viewer, too. There but for the grace of not being followed around by a video camera during my intern years go I.)

In other words, Lindsay Lohan is kind of a weirdo, and a layperson when it comes to trafficking in children, and acted accordingly. I fail to see the problem with that. It seems far, far preferable to the alternative mode of celebrity causemongering, in which stars opine on substantive policy matters, and are treated like the experts they are not.

Your thoughts?

(If we've said there's more after the jump, or you want to see comments, you should probably click here)

Off-Topic Hilarity: What if the Hard Rock Cafe Was Actually Hard Rock?

My sister's comedy group, Diamonds Wow!, has a new video up. Melinda wrote it, which is great, because it is very funny. The Upright Citizens Brigade here in NYC has branded it a "UCB Original," which seems to be their equivalent of all the Lucky Charms, all at once.

(NSFW, unless your work is much cooler than mine.)



For those of you just tuning in, Melinda's blog is here. Also, Diamonds Wow! has other videos here.

(If we've said there's more after the jump, or you want to see comments, you should probably click here)

Nicholas Cage, UN Ambassador

I know many of you have been wondering what Nicolas Cage will do in his new position as the UNODC's Goodwill Ambassador for Global Justice. Well, now we know:

(If we've said there's more after the jump, or you want to see comments, you should probably click here)