|
|
|
In-Depth:
Justice for a Lawless World? Rights and reconciliation in a new era of international law
|
 Download this in-depth report
Part I 6.36 MB
Part II 2.40 MB
- Professor Noam Chomsky
- ICC Chief Prosecutor Moreno Ocampo
- Samantha Power, Professor of Practice in Human Rights Policy
- Juan Mendez ,President of the International Center for Transitional Justice
- Justice Geoffrey Robertson Q.C.
- Dr Fanie du Toit, Programme Director for Educating for Reconciliation at the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation in South Africa
- Abdullah An-Na`im, Ph.D, Charles Howard Candler Professor of Law at Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
- Augustin Nkusi, the Director of the Legal Support Unit, National Service of Gacaca Jurisdictions, Rwanda
- Benjamin Gumpert, counsel representing Justin Mugenzi, who is currently on trial at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
- Hanny Megally, Director, Middle East and North Africa Program, International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ)
- Paul van Zyl, Country Programme Director at the International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ)
- Johnston Busingye, Secretary General of the Ministry of Justice in Rwanda
- Dennis McNamara (Special Adviser on Internal Displacement to the UN’s Emergency Relief Co-ordinator and Director of the OCHA Inter-agency Internal Displacement Division) on the rule of law
IRIN welcomes feedback. Send your messages to feedback. |
|
GLOBAL: Interview with Dennis McNamara
|
Dennis McNamara, Director of the United Nations Inter-Agency Internal Displacement Division, OCHA.
Credit: IRIN |
|
Dennis McNamara (Special Adviser on Internal Displacement to the UN’s Emergency Relief Co-ordinator and Director of the OCHA Inter-agency Internal Displacement Division) on the rule of law.
QUESTION: Has there been a failure to prioritise the rule of law in post-conflict situations?
ANSWER: The failure is pretty total. We don’t seem to grasp the need to have rule of law aspects addressed on the ground with the appropriate people at the critical time, when conflict is low-level or ending. The military cannot do it. In Kosovo, the (British) forces arrested people who were burning down houses, but then they had to release them as there was no civilian justice system to turn them over to. In Afghanistan, it has been impossible in a peacekeeping context to get sufficient civilian police in place. Similarly in many UN missions.
There is also a problem getting judges. There is a need to get qualified exiles to return to these areas. In the interim, where there is no other option, military courts that comply with international standards, might be a temporary answer. Local law should be used where available, but in these situations we need to be pragmatic. Lawyers can over-complicate the process. Within UNTAC [United Nations Transitional Authority for Cambodia], we entered the prisons in Cambodia and released some prisoners who were being tortured. There was absolutely no legal framework there whatsoever, we just had to step in.
Q: How important is the rule of law for IDPs?
A: The rule of law is of fundamental importance in the protection of displaced people. Millions of displaced do not have access to effective justice systems and there is no system for prosecution or accountability. For example, northern Uganda is effectively a militarised zone, and in South Sudan, the rule of law does not function.
But those targeted do not talk in terms of rule of law; they talk in terms of protection, which is of the utmost importance to them on the ground. They need to be protected and to be able to report what abuses happen to them and who is doing it. Governments speak often about security but they do not translate security into rule of law. Post-conflict countries are often in the mess they are in because of a lack of a functioning legal system to protect civilians. We need to face these situations in the following order: in the frontline of civilian protection should be civilians, then police; then armed police; and only then the military. The military are not trained to provide law and order – they should provide overall security.
Q: What about the culture of impunity?
A: Often political pressures on the leaders mean that they do not pursue proper accountability for serious human rights abuses, as in East Timor (as it then was). People want peace and reconciliation but they also want justice – accountability – for serious abuses.
Prosecutions of major violators send a strong deterrent message, not only to the soldiers on the ground, but also to the leaders. It is hard to prove, but I have to doubt it is effective.
Q: What about the impact of the recent tribunals and the ICC on the concept of sovereignty?
A: We are very much at a transitional stage on the question of sovereignty and the right to intervene (the responsibility to protect); there is a confluence between the old way of doing things and the new. Troops are going in to countries more and more under Chapter Seven of the UN Charter now, at last in terms of their responsibility to protect civilians at risk (for example in MONUC[DRC], UNMIS [Sudan]and UNMIR [Rwanda]).
The frustrating thing is people like Jan Egeland go in regularly to speak to the Security Council about protection of civilians, where there may be general consensus but often little political follow up by the Council.
President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf of Liberia is an exceptional woman (with a UNDP and World Bank background) who has made the right noises about prosecutions, but she is having to tread warily. She will have difficulty having Charles Taylor prosecuted, although this is essential for regional stability.
Q: What do you think of countries, such as Belgium, trying to bring extra-territorial prosecutions against non-nationals who are perceived to have committed serious human rights abuses?
A: I fully support this. We need national prosecutions as essential support to those of the ICC, wherever they may be possible.
[ENDS]
|
|
|
|
|