{"id":575069,"date":"2010-05-21T11:56:01","date_gmt":"2010-05-21T15:56:01","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/opiniojuris.org\/?p=12476"},"modified":"2010-05-21T11:56:01","modified_gmt":"2010-05-21T15:56:01","slug":"ejiltalk-discussion-of-%e2%80%98the-rise-of-international-criminal-law%e2%80%99","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/575069","title":{"rendered":"EJILTalk Discussion of \u2018The Rise of International Criminal Law\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"

by Kenneth Anderson <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

In the category of advertisements for myself<\/em> … Julian was kind enough to mention that EJILTalk is hosting a discussion of an article of mine called The Rise of International Criminal Law, which appeared in EJIL last year as part of its 20th anniversary issues. \u00a0It was a relatively short, but wide-ranging essay trying to assess, twenty years on, where ICL has gone and is likely to go, on a whole series of otherwise unrelated issues. \u00a0EJIL ran a response in the print edition by Amrita Kapur, and in addition responses at the online blog by her and by Brad Roth. \u00a0I have finally managed to get a response together<\/a>, which is quite long and will run in three posts. \u00a0The other responses are linked at the beginning of that post, as well. \u00a0I have to thank publicly EJILTalk for running such a long response, which in many ways is practically a new essay – but especially Amrita Kapur and Brad Roth for reading so closely and with such nuance my original article. \u00a0I’m very grateful to them for so much close reading and thought. \u00a0Below the fold is a bit from my response.<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

I have no idea what History will bring, and it is possible that the institutions of ICL will consolidate themselves into something resembling what Kapur offers.\u00a0\u00a0 Or Isaiah, or Tennyson, for that matter, or even the worldwide\u00a0ummah<\/em>;\u00a0others in the world also have eschatological visions<\/a>.\u00a0 I do not think the historical evidence that it will consolidate itself in these ways is very persuasive at this point, but one can differ about its persuasiveness, of course.\u00a0 But given how long the history of failed attempts here, surely those arguing for today\u2019s version of it ought to be willing to accept a bit more of the burden of proof that this one will succeed?\u00a0 Is that so much to ask?<\/p>\n

Then there is ICL\u2019s constant plea for more time.\u00a0 Kapur says this again in her blog response; with respect to R2P, for example: \u201chow much can we realistically expect this early in the reconceptualization process?\u201d\u00a0 Give us\u00a0more time<\/em>, on this, on that \u2013 in a perhaps overly-accommodating desire not to prejudge historical outcomes,\u00a0The Rise of International Criminal Law<\/em> grants lots and lots of time for these institutions to prove themselves.\u00a0 Quite possibly more than it ought.\u00a0 As I tried to suggest (rather gently) in the original article, time turns into something like a universal solvent that,\u00a0just so long<\/em> as it is granted, permits the tensions inherent in all these international law and politics agendas to not have to confront each other and, possibly, spark each other to death, because it turns out that some of these projects are not reconcilable one with another, and the result is, what,\u00a0Alien v Predator<\/em>? \u00a0…<\/p>\n

Time is what Kapur\u2019s responses most seek.\u00a0 Well, okay, says my article \u2013 take your time.\u00a0 But in this reply, perhaps it bears asking, could we have some indication of how much time is\u00a0too<\/em> much?\u00a0 How much time must go by, without reaching the happy system of justice promised by ICL, when we are entitled to say, well, it didn\u2019t work?<\/p>\n

Surely there is some concern that that \u201ctime\u201d is simply a way of forestalling accountability, a way of putting one\u2019s institutions beyond falsifiability.\u00a0 What, even in principle, would demonstrate that the ICL approach to international justice is a mistake?\u00a0 What would represent a fair test?\u00a0 It seems odd that no one seems to raise this in scholarship in which, I would have thought, setting forth tests of success and failure would be an indication of confidence in the long term prospects of the project.\u00a0 Time is something that my article grants \u2013 but I hope it is not out of bounds to ask, when does the sense of \u2018in time\u2019 become\u00a0\u2018only in the fullness of time\u2019 \u2013 which is to say, eschatological<\/a>?<\/p>\n

Maybe time will do its work and institutions will eventually draw close enough to satisfy my quite undemanding and pragmatic standards.\u00a0 The point is, however, maybe they will and maybe they won\u2019t.\u00a0 I don\u2019t think the evidence that they will is persuasive, and moreover I do think \u2013 speculatively, sure \u2013 that the rise of Asia, China above all, is likely to undermine these institutions.\u00a0 I think it is likely to show them to be a\u00a0discourse of universalist superstructure built atop the structure of a loose American hegemony<\/a> that, if it goes into decline, takes much of this stuff with it.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Kenneth Anderson In the category of advertisements for myself … Julian was kind enough to mention that EJILTalk is hosting a discussion of an article of mine called The Rise of International Criminal Law, which appeared in EJIL last year as part of its 20th anniversary issues. \u00a0It was a relatively short, but wide-ranging […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4222,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-575069","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/575069","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4222"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=575069"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/575069\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=575069"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=575069"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=575069"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}