The war within

Posted By David Bosco Monday, August 16, 2010 - 3:14 PM Share

In those long ago days when American policymakers and pundits fought tenaciously over the International Criminal Court and whether it posed a threat to American soldiers and politicians, one recurring theme was the power of the court's prosecutor. John Bolton, Henry Kissinger and others warned of a roaming, restless, and very likely anti-American prosecutor with essentially unlimited power. Court advocates responded, in part, that the Rome Statute imposes substantial checks on the prosecutor, including the requirement that indictments be approved by a panel of judges. The court's critics were not buying it, to say the least.

Those debates are no longer hypothetical, and the evidence suggests that the ICC judges are not afraid to corral the prosecutor when they think he's gone too far. The trial against Congolese warlord Thomas Lubanga has featured a series of clashes between the judges and the prosecutor's office. In the latest round, the judges ordered the prisoner freed because of a dispute over evidence and witnesses (that order has been suspended while it's on appeal). If the Lubanga case ends in a dismissal, it will be a black eye for prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo. But it might just help convince some skeptics that the judges won't be pushovers.

(1)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

GRANT

8:03 PM ET

August 16, 2010

It's rather unlikely.

It's rather unlikely. Skeptics (like humans in general) are not rational actors who are willing to give up their dislike of something based on new evidence. I think that they are far more likely to come up with other reasons to dislike it, much like some skeptics of the U.N who still believe that it impinges on the sovereignty of the U.S.