Posts
Rights of Indigenous People
Author And Page Information
by Anup Shah
This Page Last Updated Saturday, October 16, 2010
This page:http://www.globalissues.org/article/693/rights-of-indigenous-people.
To print all information e.g. expanded side notes, shows alternative links, use the print version:
http://www.globalissues.org/print/article/693
There are approximately 370 million indigenous people spanning 70 countries, worldwide. Historically they have often been dispossessed of their lands, or in the center of conflict for access to valuable resources because of where they live, or, in yet other cases, struggling to live the way they would like. Indeed, indigenous people are often amongst the most disadvantaged people in the world.
This web page has the following sub-sections:
Who Are Indigenous People And What Makes Them Different?
Conflicting Issues Such As Environment, “Biopiracy”
Indigenous People Have Often Had Many Rights Denied
UN Declaration On Rights Of Indigenous Peoples
Major Countries Opposed To Various Rights For Indigenous Peoples
Setback: Draft Declaration Opposed/Delayed By A UN General Assembly Subsidiary In November 2006
Declaration Adopted By UN General Assembly, September 2007
Opposing Countries Rethinking Their Stance?
Customary Law—Backward Or Relevant Justice Systems?
Indigenous Peoples’ Struggle Around The World
More Information
Who Are Indigenous People And What Makes Them Different?
There does not seem to be one definitive definition of indigenous people, but generally indigenous people are those that have historically belonged to a particular region or country, before its colonization or transformation into a nation state, and may have different—often unique—cultural, linguistic, traditional, and other characteristics to those of the dominant culture of that region or state. (For more details, see this fact sheet from the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII).)
In some parts of the world, they are very few indigenous people, while in other parts, they may number into the hundreds of thousands, even millions. Over the years, many groups of people have been wiped out, either by diseases of colonizing peoples, or through policies of extermination.
Those indigenous societies that remain today are predominantly subsistence-based (i.e. farming or hunting for food for immediate use), and non-urbanized, sometimes nomadic.
Back to top
Conflicting Issues Such As Environment, “Biopiracy”
Some people have been critical of indigenous peoples’ treatment of the environment, noting examples such as the deforestation of Easter Island or the disappearance of large animals from parts of America and Australia caused by native people.
However, others have argued that more generally, many indigenous people, for decades—even centuries—have accumulated important knowledge and traditions that allow them to work with nature rather than destroy it, because they are dependent on it and thus have a sense of interdependence. (See for example, works by Indian scientist and activist, Vandana Shiva.)
In other parts of the world, such as India, Brazil, Thailand, and Malaysia, multinational companies have been accused of participating in “biopiracy” whereby biological resources used by communities openly for generations (decades, centuries, or even millennia in some cases) have been patented away, leaving the local people unable to use their own local plants and other resources. This is discussed further on this site’s article,Food Patents—Stealing Indigenous Knowledge?. For other indigenous people, logging, dam projects and other activities threaten ways of life, sometimes leading to conflict.
Issues ranging from the current form of economic globalization, to climate change, all have an impact on indigenous people too. The following video clips give a few different perspectives on this.
The first is a speech (15 minutes, transcript) from Sheila Watt-Cloutier, former chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Council that represents more than 150,000 Inuit of Canada, Greenland, Alaska and Russia. She is a long-time defender of Inuit rights and has been the political spokesperson for the Inuit for more than a decade. She talks about the changes occurring in the Arctic region due to climate change and what that means for the Inuit people. She argues for the “right to be cold”. (This clip is an extract from a Democracy Now show on indigenous people.)
Sheila Watt Cloutier, Sheila Watt-Cloutier: Inuit’s Challenge in the Arctic, November 23, 2007, Democracy Now!
This longer documentary from explore.org also looks at the environmental and climatic changes in the Arctic and its impact on the indigenous populations:
Arctic: Change at the Top of the World, Explore.org, September 2007
This next clip (10 minutes, transcript) is also an extract from another Democracy Now show. This one is an interview by Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez with President Evo Morales of Bolivia in which they discuss indigenous rights and challenges. An Aymara Indian, Evo Morales became the country’s first indigenous president when he was elected nearly two years ago with more popular support than any Bolivian leader in decades.
Evo Morales, Evo Morales: Indigenous Rights, September 26, 2007,Democracy Now!
This next clip (1 minute, transcript not yet available) is a short discussion by an Aboriginal elder on how his people are coping with the modern world. (This clip is also an extract from a larger interview (54 minutes) from the Global Oneness Project.)
Major “Muggi” Sumner, Share the “Me” Stuff,Global Oneness Project
In this next clip, Priscila Néri, from the social justice organization, Witness, posts an informative video asking if environmental rights are human rights. The point made is that for many communities, the environment provides a means for them to live. Environmental degradation jeopardizes that and as such, threaten their human rights too; the two are interwoven:
Earth Day: Do Environmental Rights = Human Rights?, The Hub, Witness, April 20, 2009
Back to top
Indigenous People Have Often Had Many Rights Denied
As the UNPFII notes,
Indigenous peoples around the world have sought recognition of their identities, their ways of life and their right to traditional lands, territories and natural resources; yet throughout history, their rights have been violated. Indigenous peoples are arguably among the most disadvantaged and vulnerable groups of people in the world today. The international community now recognizes that special measures are required to protect the rights of the world’s indigenous peoples.
— About UNPFII/History, United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNFPII), accessed October 16, 2006
Indigenous people have often found their lands and cultures overridden by more dominant societies. During the era of European colonial expansion and imperialism, it was common for Europeans to think of themselves as more superior over others.
Many Europeans at that time saw native peoples from regions such as Africa, Asia and the Americas as “primitives,” or “savages” to be dominated. This would help justify settlement and expansion into those lands, and even slavery. Without civilization these people could be regarded as inferior, and if seen as “non-people” then European colonialists would not be impeding on anyone else’s territory. Instead, they would be settling “virgin territory” (sometimes “discovered”) overcoming numerous challenges they would face with much courage.
Other Europeans saw the same people as perhaps savages, but ones that could be “saved” by being civilized and introduced to Christ. Hence, many European Christian missionaries saw their goal as “civilizing the savages.” (Some of these attitudes still prevail though perhaps not as forthright, or even intentionally, as popular literature of that time that would have depicted non Europeans as inferior or at least to be feared, are still celebrated today. See works by Edward Said for more on this, such as the classicOrientalism (Vintage Books, 1979), and Culture and Imperialism, (Vintage Books, 1993).)
Today, celebrations of days such as Columbus Day in the US therefore raise bitter feelings for indigenous people. Interestingly, Christopher Columbus never set foot in the United States, though that day is celebrated there. (Democracy Now! radio show discusses explores this issue in more detail looking at the theme of power and dominance ideology that underpins why this day would still be celebrated.) For people of color and especially native American Indians, Columbus Day causes anger as they object to honoring a man who opened the door to European colonization, the exploitation of native peoples and the slave trade.
Many Europeans and their descendants around the world have tried to look back at history and ask how it was that Europe and the West prospered and rose to such prominence. The late Professor J.M. Blaut accused many historians and others of employing self-congratulation and projecting eurocentric world views, whereby reasons for Europe’s rise were (and still are) attributed to things like favorable conditions for agriculture, for democracy to grow, and for economic superiority to take hold. Race was sometimes claimed to be a factor, too.
Blaut was critical of these and other underlying assumptions and belief systems that guided this view, showing many assumptions to be false, and suggested instead that colonialism and the “discovery” and exploitation of the Americas, with the plunder of silver, gold and other resources helped fund a European rise.
Blaut’s work is presented in two books (though a third was never finished for he passed away), part of a volume called The Colonizer’s Model of the World. His two books areGeographical Diffusionism and Eurocentric History (Guilford Press, 1993), and Eight Eurocentric Historians, by J.M. Blaut (Guilford Press, 2000).
It was after World War I and II that movements for indigenous rights starting gaining more traction. Witnessing the immense destruction, violence and barbarism of those wars, colonized people began questioning the European claim that their civilizations were superior and peaceful. Weakened European countries could no longer hold on to their colonies, and a wave of anti-colonial and nationalist movements sprung up as people around the world saw their chance to break free. European countries began conceding territories, and for many indigenous groups, accepted that they should have more rights to determine their own destiny.
Under international law, tribal people, for example, do have some recognized rights. The two most important laws about tribal peoples are Conventions 107 and 169 under the International Labor Organization (ILO), part of the UN system.
Survival International, a prominent organization that presses for the rights of tribal peoples, summarizes that
These conventions obliges governments to identify the lands and protect these rights… It ensures recognition of tribal peoples’ cultural and social practices, obliges governments to consult with tribal peoples about laws affecting them, guarantees respect for tribal peoples’ customs, and calls for protection of their natural resources.
— International Law, Survival International, undated
The struggle for such rights is still not over. Many governments routinely violate the rights of indigenous people. A slow process is, however, raising hope for a more comprehensive set of rights, although some major countries are still against some particular aspects.
Back to top
UN Declaration On Rights Of Indigenous Peoples
After taking more than 20 years to draft and agree, on June 29, 2006, the United Nations Human Rights Council adopted the U.N. Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
The Declaration emphasizes the right of indigenous peoples to maintain and strengthen their own institutions, cultures and traditions and to pursue their development in accordance with their aspirations and needs.
Although it would not be legally binding if it were ever adopted by the General Assembly, indigenous communities around the world have pressed hard for this and have felt that the adoption of the declaration will help indigenous people in their effortsagainst discrimination, racism, oppression, marginalization and exploitation.
Major Countries Opposed To Various Rights For Indigenous Peoples
The process to draft the aforementioned declaration moved very slowly, not because of some imagined slowness and inefficiencies of an over-sized bureaucracy, but because of concerns expressed by particular countries at some of the core provisions of the draft declaration, especially the right to self-determination of indigenous peoples and the control over natural resources existing on indigenous peoples’ traditional lands.
Some historically and currently powerful countries have been opposed to various rights and provisions for indigenous peoples, because of the implications to their territory, or because it would tacitly recognize they have been involved in major injustices during periods of colonialism and imperialism. Giving such people’s the ability to regain some lost land, for example, would be politically explosive.
Inter Press Service (IPS) notes, for example, that countries such as the United States, Australia, and New Zealand, have all been opposed to this declaration. These countries have noted in a joint statement that “No government can accept the notion of creating different classes of citizens.”
Furthermore, as IPS also noted, the delegation claimed that the indigenous land claims ignore current reality “by appearing to require the recognition to lands now lawfully owned by other citizens.”
The problem with the delegations’ views are that they ignore historical reality. To say that “creating different classes of citizens” is objectionable does sound fair. However, in this case, different classes were created from the very beginning as indigenous people were cleared off their lands and either treated as second class citizens, or, not even considered to be citizens in the first place. Many of these laws then, were often made by a society that never recognized or accepted that such people had rights, and so the law only applied to the new dominant society, not the original people.
There are of course complications to this. For example, there is often a contentious debate about whether some European settlers colonized land that was not inhabited before, or were used by nomadic people, in which case European settlers could argue (from their perspective) that the land was not properly settled. Also, European settlers can also note that sometimes agreements were made with indigenous people to obtain certain lands, but it is also contentious as to whether all these agreements would have been made fairly, as some were made at gun point, while other agreements were achieved through deception and various forms of manipulation.
Survival International criticizes Britain and France, of being opposed to some aspects of rights for indigenous peoples, as well as the United States. These two countries, formerly commanding vast empires and colonies have also subjected native peoples to cruel denial of rights and oppression.
A key part of the declaration has been the “collective” right of indigenous peoples, for they are seen by many indigenous communities as “essential for the integrity, survival and well-being of our distinct nations and communities. They are inseparably linked to our cultures, spirituality and worldviews. They are also critical to the exercise and enjoyment of the rights of indigenous individuals.” (Letter from 40 indigenous peoples’ organizations to Tony Blair, September 2004, quoted by the above-mentioned article from Survival International.)
A reason such countries may be opposed to collective rights is that it implies land and resource rights, whereas supporting only individual rights would not. Collective rights could therefore threaten access to valuable resources if they cannot be exploited, or if they are used for, and by, the indigenous communities.
As Survival International also notes, individual rights is sometimes an alien concept to some societies, and it can be easier to exploit individuals than a collective people:
Full collective rights over land and resources are essential for the survival of tribal peoples. The Yanomami of Amazonia, for example, live in large communal houses called yanos. The concept of ‘individual ownership’ of such a building is nonsensical. A tribe’s right to decide, for example, whether a mining company should be allowed to operate on its land, also only makes sense as a collective right. The UK claims, however, that these vital collective rights should be individual rights ‘exercised collectively.’ In the USA, the infamous Dawes Act of 1887 demonstrated the danger of this approach. The Act turned communally-held Indian lands into individual plots; 90 million acres of Indian land were removed at a stroke, and the reservations were broken up.
— UK Government blocks historic UN Declaration, Survival International, February 1, 2005
When interviewed in the above-mentioned IPS article, Stephen Corry, director of Survival International noted,
The imperial era was largely based on the dispossession of most of the world’s indigenous people … It cannot be considered over until the world accepts these peoples’ rights.
— Stephen Corry, Director of Survival International, interviewed by Haider Rizvi, UN Faces Test on Native Rights, Inter Press Service, October 13, 2006
Setback: Draft Declaration Opposed/Delayed By A UN General Assembly Subsidiary In November 2006
A set-back for adoption of this declaration came at the end of November 2006 when, somewhat unexpectedly, a subsidiary body of the U.N. General Assembly rejected the draft declaration, proposing more time for further discussion.
As reported by IPS (previous link), some African countries who had previously supported the declaration this time raised concerns about the phrase “right to self-determination” because much of Africa is considered indigenous and they feared unwanted rebellions by some groups within their borders.
Some indigenous leaders, disappointed by this, claimed it was pressure from US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and others opposed to the declaration, that had lobbied for this position, behind the scenes.
IPS also added that, “The U.S. and its allies argue that the declaration is ‘inconsistent with international law.’ The U.S. has also repeatedly held that the indigenous land claim ignores current reality by ‘appearing to require the recognition to lands now lawfully owned by other citizens.’”
What the US position seems to ignore is that many lands now “lawfully owned”, have been based on an initial theft from others. As detailed further above and summarized here:
Historically, conquering societies have created arguments and moral justifications for their approaches.
Some have included views that the former people living in the conquered lands were not “civilized” (they were “savages” etc), and had no concept of individual property rights, etc and so they never “owned” the lands they lived in
Therefore it was seen as okay to claim the “unoccupied” or “unowned” land as their own.
Furthermore, this subtle imposition of the outsider’s culture, practices and norms onto other cultures (to whom many facets may be alien or alternative to their ways) when used in this manner, is coercive and denies them rights, while transferring them to the newcomers instead.
And so, if ever the formerly dispossessed people attempt to regain some of what they unfairly lost, then it will be countered by such technicalities.
In the case of the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, they have, in theory, an enormous amount to lose if this declaration ever became a stepping stone to monumental indigenous claims, and therefore it is resisted.
(The resolution for amendments to the draft was endorsed by 82 countries. 67 voted against it, and 25 abstained.)
As another IPS report notes, while disappointed with the recent vote, many still feel the declaration is powerful and positive, even in draft form. For example, it had a strong endorsement from the UN Human Rights Council and the draft “was the basis for the formulation of the Indigenous People’s Rights Act in the Philippines, and it has been used as a framework for changing constitutions in Latin America” notes an interviewed activist.
However, Amnesty International fears the delay could result in a weaker draft declaration, fearing an attempt to reword parts of the declaration for future adoption, and warned that any rewording must be fully transparent, allowing all stakeholders to continue to participate.
Massachusetts-based Cultural Survival, an organization campaigning for indigenous rights around the world, shares these concerns and is very critical of larger states’ lobbying of smaller states to vote against this declaration. They felt it was a tactic to ultimately kill the declaration:
Packaged as a mere delay, the vote received no press coverage or wider attention. In fact, the tactic was designed to kill the declaration. No regular sessions of the General Assembly are scheduled after mid-December, and there is no budget authorized for a special session. Moreover, there is nothing in the resolution that would ensure indigenous peoples’ participation in the committee’s deliberations.
Why was the declaration shot down? At least some African states are concerned that it does not define “indigenous” and that it supports “self-determination” for indigenous peoples. Those states take the view that all Africans are indigenous, and that self-determination—one of the key points of the declaration—only applies to nations trying to free themselves from the yoke of colonialism. While fair concerns, the declaration, which is not legally binding, is clear that the meaning of these terms must be defined in context and negotiated between indigenous peoples and the state in which they live.
But the real impetus behind the initiative came from the same very powerful states that have objected all along. What they don’t like is the language in the declaration that gives indigenous peoples rights to their lands and resources, and ensures their free, prior, and informed consent before those rights are impeded upon.
— UN General Assembly Declines Vote on Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Cultural Survival, December 4, 2006
Declaration Adopted By UN General Assembly, September 2007
Despite the above concerns, the UN General Assembly eventually adopted the declaration on September 13, 2007. Predictably, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States voted against the declaration when 143 nations voted in favor of it.
Opposing Countries Rethinking Their Stance?
In October 2010, Inter Press Service reports that the four opposers to the declaration have all been rethinking their stance: “[Australia and New Zealand] have since reversed their positions and, in March, Canada announced its intention to change its position. Around the same time, the U.S. also decided to undertake a review of its position.”
11 countries also abstained at the time. Two of those, IPS also added, have since endorsed it: Colombia and Samoa.
Back to top
Customary Law—Backward Or Relevant Justice Systems?
Many indigenous cultures having developed their own societal traditions and norms naturally have ways to deal with crimes. Various anthropologists and others have noted some interesting differences between some traditional systems of justice and modern law. Guisela Mayén provides a useful summary:
indigenous law consists of a series of unwritten oral principles that are abided by and socially accepted by a specific community. Although these norms may vary from one community to another, they are all based on the idea of recommending appropriate behavior rather than on prohibition.
… customary indigenous law aims to restore the harmony and balance in a community; it is essentially collective in nature, whereas the Western judicial system is based on individualism. Customary law is based on the principle that the wrongdoer must compensate his or her victim for the harm that has been done so that he or she can be reinserted into the community, whereas the Western system seeks punishment.
— Guisela Mayén, quoted by Louisa Reynolds, Mayan law still lacks official recognition, Latin America Press, October 6, 2006
Rachel Sieder, quoted in the same article notes that such laws are not fixed; they adapt to circumstances, but also adds that it isn’t necessarily worse or better than the western approach, just different.
As the above cited article also exemplifies, many indigenous systems are often not recognized officially, even in countries with large indigenous populations. “Ethnocentrism” is also practiced sometimes, when some societies look at indigenous systems as backward or barbaric.
Anthropologists such as Richard Robbins (see for example, his book Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism, (Allyn and Bacon, 2002, 2005), Jared Diamonds (see for example, Guns, Germs and Steel, (W.W. Norton and Co., 1997) make observations that in hunter-gather societies that pre-date our agricultural-based civilizations, the need forofficial systems of justice was not necessary. We sometimes view such systems as barbaric, backward and non-civilized, as we tend to view it through our civilization lens.
However, these systems—not necessarily peaceful in some romantic way—were, however, effective. For example, there was tacit knowledge that committing certain crimes would not be wise to do because the perpetrator would likely be cast out of the tribe or group, which in some ways would certainly be as bad as a prison sentence. In addition, because people would tend to know each other personally, there would be less tendency to commit many types of crimes we are familiar with today. In our societies of large populations where we are likely to know hardly anyone (comparatively), a more formal system of rules of law tends to work well.
In the United Kingdom recently, there has been much made about overflowing prisons, the problem of violent youth, even overflowing youth detention centers. A number of considerations in recent years has also been to put in place “anti social behavior orders” (ASBO’s) whereby attempts are made to keep people in the communities but be visibly punished or restricted in some way.
This technique being tried in UK has certainly come under criticism and it is by no means certain that it will work in the long run, but that different attempts are being considered does show that in a way then, there some a commonality with the more indigenous systems, suggesting that indeed indigenous systems are not necessarily bad, and there may be a place for various alternatives in modern society as well.
In addition, as Mayén’s article also notes, about the Mayan people in Latin American countries such as Guatemala, such indigenous systems may indeed be very relevant for such large indigenous populations.
In various countries in Africa, traditional systems of justice have often helped people come to term with conflict as part of a rebuilding process. Truth and reconciliation commissions, such as the well-known one in South Africa have bought victims and perpetrators together.
Truth commissions attempt to establish what happened, why, by whom, and may even include provisions for amnesty, forgiveness, or appropriate justice, all in the hope that “never again” should such gross human rights abuses occur. Victims get the chance to be heard and perpetrators have the opportunity to reintegrate back into society without the fear of backlash. In Africa, there have been commissions in South Africa, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, the Central African Republic, Ghana, Nigeria, and Kenya. Liberia and the Democratic Republic of Congo have also hinted at the prospect of truth commissions.
These systems are not perfect, as sometimes war criminals may get off lighter than expected.
A visit to South Africa revealed to me that indeed there were some African people unhappy that some people from the apartheid regime had been spared prison or other forms of punishment and even had gone on to create wealthy businesses while their victims continued to suffer the effects of their harsh treatment at the time.
For example, there were moving stories from former political prisoners in South Africa, including one who was with Nelson Mandela, whereby their white prison guards were forgiven for many crimes committed on them, only to find that the guards had since gone on to make a lot of money in new business ventures. In the meanwhile, the prisoner had remained in poverty, continuing to suffer from the effects of the beatings and other damage received while in prison—without any compensation. There are many individual stories like this, not just from prisoners. However, as Robert Rotberg noted in Truth vs Justice, these were part of a set of compromises that was felt would be needed to forge a successful multiracial society.
In Rwanda, following the genocide, the sheer number of cases to be tried through retributive justice could not cope, so a traditional system—usually limited to small minor disputes—was incorporated as well, called gacaca, based more on restorative justice, whereby elements of leniency for admitting crimes, reparations to victims, and apology were essential. While this has helped, some people are still bitter, as these systems are not perfect. Yet, the traditional system has been seen as more citizen-based, while the official tribunal system is seen as remote and disconnected from local people. The tribunal has been left for those who planned the genocide and other such officials. The Rwandan experience with truth and reconciliation is explored in more detail on this site’s section on Rwanda.
Sierra Leone, another country recovering from immense violence has also seen mixed results from such commissions, and Lyn Graybill and Kimberly Lanegran survey these in detail, and conclude that there should be guarded optimism for such transitional justice systems:
South Africa’s TRC appears to be making a lesser contribution to interpersonal reconciliation than to national unity…. the interpretations of “the truth” revealed by a process like South Africa’s truth commission must be regarded as one set of voices among many others.… Both the ICTR and gacaca will fall short of hastening full reconciliation which Rwandans need to avoid future violence, but [there is hope] that Rwandans will receive some measure of justice. Similarly, … Sierra Leone’s truth commission has struggled to fulfill its objectives and appears to have made limited contributions to addressing the needs of its major stakeholder groups. Amputees, for example, regard reparations as the single most important component of justice for them, but the truth commission can only make recommendations to Sierra Leone’s government for appropriate payments for victims. None of … these experiments in transitional justice have been irrelevant or total failures, but all do call for modest expectations and rigorous evaluation of the actual results.
— Lyn Graybill and Kimberly Lanegran, Truth, Justice, and Reconciliation in Africa: Issues and Cases, African Studies Quarterly, (University of Florida), Volume 8, Issue 1, Fall 2004
Back to top
Indigenous Peoples’ Struggle Around The World
The International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA) has for years worked on these issues. Their world reports detail issues and struggles for indigenous people around the world. Their 570-page report for 2006, The Indigenous World 2006 , for example, details the following areas:
Image: Population distribution in the circumpolar Arctic, by country (including indigenous population), UNEP/GRID-Arendal Maps and Graphics Library, (Accessed 22 October 2009). Visit link for full size image.
The Circumpolar North
The Arctic Council
Greenland
Sápmi in Norway and Finland
Russia
Alaska (USA)
Arctic Canada
North America
Canada
United States of America
Mexico and Central America
Mexico
Guatemala
Nicaragua
Panama
South America
Colombia
Venezuela
Suriname
Ecuador
Peru
Bolivia
Brazil
Paraguay
Argentina
Chile
Australia and the Pacific
Australia
The Islands of the Pacific
West Papua
East and Southeast Asia
Japan
Tibet
Taiwan
Philippines
Indonesia
Malaysia
Thailand
Cambodia
Vietnam
Laos
Burma
Nagalim
South Asia
Bangladesh
Nepal
India
Middle East
The Marsh Dwellers of Iraq
The Bedouins of Israel
North and West Africa
The Amazigh people of Morocco
The Touareg People
The Horn of Africa and East Africa
Ethiopia
Kenya
Tanzania
Central Africa, Cameroon and Gabon
Uganda
Rwanda
Burundi
The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)
Republic of Congo (Congo Brazaville)
Gabon
Cameroon
Southern Africa
Angola
Namibia
Botswana
South Africa
Combining information from the above and a chart from the International Forum on Globalization looking at parts of the world where modern economic corporate globalization has impacted indigenous communities, the following world map of indigenous people has been constructed. While crude (for example, a large country may just have a portion of indigenous people in it, in a few areas only), it gives an idea of the global nature of this issue:
Image: countries with indigenous populations
Back to top
More Information
The above only scratches at the surface of the issues. For more detail, consider the following as useful starting points:
United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues
Survival International
Inter Press Service’s coverage of indigenous peoples’ issues
From OneWorld.net:
News coverage of indigenous rights issues
A large list of partner organizations working on indigenous rights issues
International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs
Intercontinental Cry is a detailed blog devoted to indigenous issues
Back to top
Where Next?
Related articles
Human Rights In Various Regions
Democracy
Racism
Women’s Rights
Rights Of Indigenous People
The Internet And Human Rights
Rights Of The Child
Corporations And Human Rights
A Chronology Of The Global Human Rights Struggle
Human Rights Links For More Information
Share This Page With:
Bookmark or share this with others using some popular social bookmarking web sites:
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Google
del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
Link To This Page From Your Site/Blog
Copy/paste the following HTML code to your page:
… to produce this:
Anup Shah, Rights of Indigenous People, Global Issues, Updated: October 16, 2010
Alternatively, copy/paste the following MLA citation format for this page:
Shah, Anup. “Rights of Indigenous People.” Global Issues. 16 Oct. 2010. Web. 09 Jun. 2011. <http://www.globalissues.org/article/693/rights-of-indigenous-people>.
Other Options
Find This Page/Site Useful?
Let a friend know
Subscribe to the RSS web feed
Follow this site on Facebook
Follow this site on Twitter
Other Options
Printable Version
Get Free Email Updates
Support this site
Feedback
Author And Page Information
by Anup Shah
Created: Sunday, October 15, 2006
Last Updated: Saturday, October 16, 2010
Back to top
Navigation
Share This
http://www.globalissues.org/article/693/rights-of-indigenous-people#ConflictingIssuessuchasEnvironmentBiopiracyCustomary Law—backward or relevant justice systems?
Many indigenous cultures having developed their own societal traditions and norms naturally have ways to deal with crimes. Various anthropologists and others have noted some interesting differences between some traditional systems of justice and modern law. Guisela Mayén provides a useful summary:
indigenous law consists of a series of unwritten oral principles that are abided by and socially accepted by a specific community. Although these norms may vary from one community to another, they are all based on the idea of recommending appropriate behavior rather than on prohibition.
… customary indigenous law aims to restore the harmony and balance in a community; it is essentially collective in nature, whereas the Western judicial system is based on individualism. Customary law is based on the principle that the wrongdoer must compensate his or her victim for the harm that has been done so that he or she can be reinserted into the community, whereas the Western system seeks punishment.
Rachel Sieder, quoted in the same article notes that such laws are not fixed; they adapt to circumstances, but also adds that it isn’t necessarily worse or better than the western approach, just different.
As the above cited article also exemplifies, many indigenous systems are often not recognized officially, even in countries with large indigenous populations. “Ethnocentrism” is also practiced sometimes, when some societies look at indigenous systems as backward or barbaric.
However, these systems—not necessarily peaceful in some romantic way—were, however, effective. For example, there was tacit knowledge that committing certain crimes would not be wise to do because the perpetrator would likely be cast out of the tribe or group, which in some ways would certainly be as bad as a prison sentence. In addition, because people would tend to know each other personally, there would be less tendency to commit many types of crimes we are familiar with today. In our societies of large populations where we are likely to know hardly anyone (comparatively), a more formal system of rules of law tends to work well.
In the United Kingdom recently, there has been much made about overflowing prisons, the problem of violent youth, even overflowing youth detention centers. A number of considerations in recent years has also been to put in place “anti social behavior orders” (ASBO’s) whereby attempts are made to keep people in the communities but be visibly punished or restricted in some way.
This technique being tried in UK has certainly come under criticism and it is by no means certain that it will work in the long run, but that different attempts are being considered does show that in a way then, there some a commonality with the more indigenous systems, suggesting that indeed indigenous systems are not necessarily bad, and there may be a place for various alternatives in modern society as well.In addition, as Mayén’s article also notes, about the Mayan people in Latin American countries such as Guatemala, such indigenous systems may indeed be very relevant for such large indigenous populations.
In various countries in Africa, traditional systems of justice have often helped people come to term with conflict as part of a rebuilding process. Truth and reconciliation commissions, such as the well-known one in South Africa have bought victims and perpetrators together.
Truth commissions attempt to establish what happened, why, by whom, and may even include provisions for amnesty, forgiveness, or appropriate justice, all in the hope that “never again” should such gross human rights abuses occur. Victims get the chance to be heard and perpetrators have the opportunity to reintegrate back into society without the fear of backlash. In Africa, there have been commissions in South Africa, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, the Central African Republic, Ghana, Nigeria, and Kenya. Liberia and the Democratic Republic of Congo have also hinted at the prospect of truth commissionsIn Rwanda, following the genocide, the sheer number of cases to be tried through retributive justice could not cope, so a traditional system—usually limited to small minor disputes—was incorporated as well, called gacaca, based more on restorative justice, whereby elements of leniency for admitting crimes, reparations to victims, and apology were essential. While this has helped, some people are still bitter, as these systems are not perfect. Yet, the traditional system has been seen as more citizen-based, while the official tribunal system is seen as remote and disconnected from local people. The tribunal has been left for those who planned the genocide and other such officials. The Rwandan experience with truth and reconciliation is explored in more detail on this site’s section on Rwanda.
Sierra Leone, another country recovering from immense violence has also seen mixed results from such commissions, and Lyn Graybill and Kimberly Lanegran survey these in detail, and conclude that there should be guarded optimism for such transitional justice systems:
South Africa’s TRC appears to be making a lesser contribution to interpersonal reconciliation than to national unity…. the interpretations of “the truth” revealed by a process like South Africa’s truth commission must be regarded as one set of voices among many others.… Both the ICTR and gacaca will fall short of hastening full reconciliation which Rwandans need to avoid future violence, but [there is hope] that Rwandans will receive some measure of justice. Similarly, … Sierra Leone’s truth commission has struggled to fulfill its objectives and appears to have made limited contributions to addressing the needs of its major stakeholder groups. Amputees, for example, regard reparations as the single most important component of justice for them, but the truth commission can only make recommendations to Sierra Leone’s government for appropriate payments for victims. None of … these experiments in transitional justice have been irrelevant or total failures, but all do call for modest expectations and rigorous evaluation of the actual results.
Rights of Indigenous People
The Internet and Human Rights
Rights of the Child
Corporations and Human Rights
A Chronology of the Global Human Rights Struggle
Human Rights Links for more Information
Thursday, June 9, 2011
WHY WAR CRIMES TRIBUNALS ARE NECESSARY
What International War Crimes Tribunals Are
International war crimes tribunals are courts of law established to try individuals accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Despite the often heinous nature of the crimes that individuals commit during intractable conflicts, including genocide, torture, and rape, it has become common practice to offer the accused an opportunity to explain his or her actions in front of the victims and their families, as well as the media. Tribunals have almost entirely replaced retributive justice's summary executions. Based on generally agreed-upon international standards of acceptable human behavior, they have introduced a new ethos of liberal legalism for dealing with war crimes.[1]
Why War Crimes Tribunals Matter
Following a conflict, crimes that have exceeded the normal parameters of war behavior (jus in bello) must be dealt with before a society can begin the peacebuilding process of reconciliation. War crimes tribunals do not offer the accused a chance for forgiveness as truth and reconciliation commissions do. Tribunals do, however, offer victims and their families the opportunity to confront those responsible for what happened to them, and hopefully to put the horrors of war behind them. A tribunal can be a forum for honoring the memory of those lost, as well as punishing those responsible.
The war crimes tribunals of Nuremberg and Tokyo, in which legal justice was used to punish the upper echelons of the German and Japanese military following World War II, continue to be regarded as the most successful tribunals to date. The democratic, progressive success of both nations following these tribunals is often given as evidence of the effectiveness of war crimes tribunals in helping a society that has perpetrated war crimes to return to stable diplomatic relations and the road to peace.
The Positive Side of War Crimes Tribunals
Mark Amstutz, a professor at Wheaton College, finds fault with retributive approaches to justice because they do not pay sufficient attention to how individuals are to reconstruct their lives.
One of the arguments in support of war crimes tribunals is that they act as a deterrent to potential war criminals. In fact, this idea is one of the main arguments behind a push to construct a permanent international war crimes tribunal. Currently, tribunals have to be sponsored by an organization like the U.N. or a national government. Without a permanently-established war crimes court, military and government leaders may feel emboldened to commit crimes such as the mass murder of ethnic groups in East Timor in the 1980s and 1990s, or in Rwanda in 1994.
War crimes tribunals offer a rare chance for the world's leaders and citizens to scrutinize both the deplorable decisions made by particular leaders, and the atrocities committed by the soldiers and agents of those leaders. Without such a forum, there would be no method for assuring that the masterminds and perpetrators of genocide and other war crimes are justly punished.
Tribunals also give victims and their families an opportunity to regain a sense of power that may have been lost resulting from a war crime. It is empowering for victims to stand up in a court of law and identify those who wronged them. A war crimes tribunal can also force forgotten or hidden atrocities to be retold by survivors. In this way war criminals living free of judgment are finally forced to accept responsibility for their actions and be judged for what they have done.
For a country attempting to make a transition from a repressive regime to a democracy, war crimes tribunals offer citizens and leaders the opportunity to put their faith in an equitable rule of law. Countries that truly wish to become modern democracies must accept the rule of democratic law and apply it to even their most powerful criminals. While this process takes an enormous effort of national will, nations that successfully conduct tribunals within the bounds of such laws prove they can function without reverting to the undesirable methods of repression and violence. Thus war crimes tribunals have the potential to help emerging democracies discover the benefits of a strong legal system while reconciling past atrocities.[2]
Finally, if all members of a society can agree upon what is unacceptable by trying its war criminals, then it is easier for the society to agree on what is acceptable. A successful war crimes tribunal allows the past to be laid to rest and a peaceful future forged from its results.
The Negative Side of War Crimes Tribunals
Terrence Lyons talks about the balance that lies between providing incentives for dictators to step down and enforcing punishment mechanisms for leaders who have behaved unjustly.
Many argue that war crimes tribunals offer no deterrent to potential criminals whatsoever. People with strong convictions against a certain religious or ethnic group will likely not feel any less hatred for that group just because a possible tribunal looms in the future. Both Hitler and Pol Pot believed they would be revered by future generations for the extreme measures they took to change the makeup of their societies. These leaders were inspired by their visions of the future and it is unlikely the prospect of a war crimes tribunal would have swayed either dictator.
In fact, another argument against tribunals is that men like Hitler and Pol Pot, the leaders of violent movements, are never judged by tribunals for what they do. A war crimes tribunal that tries only middle ranking officers, soldiers, and politicians is not as effective as one that tries the mastermind behind the crimes. The trial of Slobodan Milosevic offers some hope for the future of tribunals. However, if Milosevic is acquitted, that will support another argument against tribunals: often the legal system actually helps the accused avoid punishment. Insufficient evidence, unclear testimony, unsure witnesses, and the inability to directly link crimes with individuals due to chains of command are all factors that can lead to war criminals walking free, with full grace of the court.
Another criticism of war crimes tribunals is that they do not alleviate the underlying causes of the conflict. In fact, tribunals can escalate conflict, especially in a multi-ethnic society. In cases of genocide, those accused of war crimes are usually all from one ethnic group. To this group, a war crimes tribunal can appear to be a trial against their ethnicity, not just an individual from their group. This is especially true when the judicial system fails to fairly represent the whole society. For example, Rwandan Hutus accused of killing Tutsis would doubt in the possibility of a fair trial if only Tutsis were running the tribunal. Other Hutus, including those not accused, would likely feel the same way. Thus the war crimes tribunal could act as a wedge driving the two groups further apart.
This idea leads to another complaint about war crimes tribunals: that they are ineffective in transforming a fractured society into one of stability and peace. Following the end of apartheid in South Africa, the Rev. Desmond Tutu argued against a war crimes tribunal, pushing instead for a truth and reconciliation commission. He believed that no reconciliation or transformation was possible if the accused were not forgiven. War crimes tribunals necessarily demonize individuals and sometimes whole groups, further separating parties, instead of building peace.[3]
Possibly the most powerful argument against war crimes tribunals is that they offer only the victors justice. What was most obviously missing following World War II was not Hitler at Nuremberg, but a trial for Americans, French, British, and Russian individuals who committed acts that would have been considered war crimes had the Allies lost the war. The fire bombing of Dresden and the use of atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are clear examples of acts for which Allied leaders would have been tried had the war ended in favor of the Germans and Japanese. While it is easy and satisfying to put the enemy in prison for what he or she has done, it does not seem entirely fair if all those who participate in a war are not held to the same standards. In fact, one of the reasons that the United States has so far failed to support an international war crimes tribunal, the International Criminal Court, is fear that U.S. officers would be found guilty by the court. The United States also fears that this Court could be used for political revenge against the world's only superpower.
The Creation of an International Criminal Court
Sarah Cobb describes the importance of framing values clearly in one's narratives.
The International Criminal Court (I.C.C.) was officially established on July 1, 2002, and is located in The Hague, The Netherlands. However, all of the world's nations have not ratified the Rome Statute of the I.C.C., the document outlining the purposes, capabilities, and restrictions of the I.C.C. In fact, the United States, Russia, and Japan are among the major industrialized states that have yet to ratify this document. However, a sufficient number of nations have ratified the Rome Statute, and in accordance with its rules, the court now officially exists.
A key component of the I.C.C. is that only war crimes committed after the I.C.C.'s establishment can fall under its jurisdiction. Another aspect is that only those nations that ratify the document will fall under its jurisdiction. In general, the I.C.C. will have jurisdiction over crimes brought to its attention by outside parties or by its own investigators. The I.C.C. will not replace national tribunals, but will complement them by offering an arena for hearing claims that may be too complicated or extensive for a national court.[4]
One could argue that until all of the nations of the world ratify the Rome Statute, the Court cannot truly be considered an international criminal court. However, the establishment of the Court is a significant step toward the creation of an international system of war crimes justice.
[1] Bass, Gary Jonathan. Stay the Hand of Vengeance: The politics of war crimes tribunals. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000)
[2] Kritz, Neil J. Transitional Justice: How emerging democracies reckon with former regimes. (Washington: USIP, 1995)
[3] Tutu, Desmond Mpilo. No Future Without Forgiveness. (New York: Doubleday, 1999)
[4] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. (United Nations, 1999-2002) [on-line] Available from http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/romefra.htm. Accessed on January 30, 2002.
Use the following to cite this article:McMorran, Chris. "International War Crimes Tribunals." Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: July 2003 <http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/int_war_crime_tribunals/>.
Sources of Additional, In-depth Information on this Topic
Additional Explanations of the Underlying Concepts:
Online (Web) Sources
Brahm, Eric. "Burying the Past: Making Peace and Doing Justice After Civil Conflict -- Summary." Conflict Research Consortium, 2000. Available at: http://www.beyondintractability.org/booksummary/10047/.This is a summary of Nigel Biggar's "Burying the Past: Making Peace and Doing Justice After Civil Conflict."Brahm, Eric. "Closing the Books: Transitional Justice in Historical Perspective -- Summary." Conflict Research Consortium, 2000. Available at: http://www.beyondintractability.org/booksummary/10185/.This is a summary of Jon Elster's "Closing the Books: Transitional Justice in Historical Perspective."Brahm, Eric. "Confronting Past Human Rights Violations: Justice vs. Peace in Times of Transition -- Summary." Conflict Research Consortium. Available at: http://www.beyondintractability.org/booksummary/10029/.This is a summary of Chandra Lekha Sriram's "Confronting Past Human Rights Violations: Justice vs. Peace in Times of Transition"Facing History and Ourselves. Available at: http://www.facinghistory.org.This organization is based around helping people to understand the present and future by educating them about the past. It seeks to develop programs that would allow students to think critically about the past by emphasizing morality in history. The website has links to new articles discussing current world events and also provides resources for understanding these events. There are also resources like academic articles, films, books, and teaching tools provided at this site.International Criminal Court Fact Sheet. United Nations. Available at: http://www.un.org/News/facts/iccfact.htm.This United Nations site includes a helpful list of frequently asked questions about the ICC as well as a video of the press conference announcing the formal establishment of the Court. Nuremberg War Crimes Trials. Available at: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/imt.htm.This site offers a comprehensive list of documents related to the Nuremberg war trials.Smith, Charles Anthony. "The Primacy of Politics: Justice, Power, and War Crimes Trials." Online Journal of Peace and Conflict Resolution, Vol. 2, No. 3 , 1999Available at: http://www.trinstitute.org/ojpcr/2_3smith.htm.This online article discusses the purposes behind war crimes tribunals, namely political trials versus trials seeking justice.Cassette, Jacquie. "Towards Justice in the Wake of Armed Conflicts?: The Evolution of War Crimes Tribunals." African Security Review, Vol. 9, No. 5/6 , 2000Available at: http://www.iss.co.za/Pubs/ASR/9No5And6/Cassette.html."This article traces the history and development of war crimes tribunals in the context of the development of international criminal law, with the emphasis on the establishment of the ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and in hopeful anticipation of the establishment of a permanent international criminal court." "War Crimes Tribunals/Truth Commissions." , 2002Available at: Click here for more info."International or domestic war crimes tribunals and domestic war crimes trials investigate and prosecute war crimes and genocide where massive violations of human rights have been perpetrated, usually by military, para-military and political organizations associated with a government, often having incited civilians to participate in the violations. Commissions of inquiry and truth commissions investigate and publish war crimes and genocide." This page includes all the pertinent information regarding war crimes tribunals and truth commissions as tools in conflict prevention and resolution.
Offline (Print) Sources
Biggar, Nigel, ed. Burying the Past: Making Peace and Doing Justice after Civil Conflict. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, March 2001. This is a collection of essays drawn together by Nigel Biggar (Professor of Theology at the University of Leeds) that explores the challenges of establishing democracy after a period of violent and prolonged civil conflict. Relationships within the populace must be restored so that reprisals and revenge do not undermine or subvert emerging democratic processes. Click here for more info.Elster, Jon. Closing the Books: Transitional Justice in Historical Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, September 6, 2004. This books examines historical examples of the process of transitional justice. It discusses how different countries have dealt with the fall of regimes, war criminals, and moving past the memories of conflict. Click here for more info.Sriram, Chandra Lekha. Confronting Past Human Rights Violations: Justice vs. Peace in Times of Transition. New York: Frank Cass, 2004. This book challenges transitional justice literature, which aruges that in a period of transition governments much choose between ensuring peace and attaining justice. This Sriram believes that there is a peace and justice continuum and rather than putting the two in competition with each other. Click here for more info.Akhavan, Payam. "Beyond Impunity: Can International Criminal Justice Prevent Future Atrocities?." American Journal of International Law 95:1, January 2001. Akhaven looks at the "determinate causes" of large-scale violence and determines that, despite an "inverted morality [that] has elevated otherwise 'deviant' crimes to the highest expression of group loyalty," international stigmatization of criminal conduct may have significant influence and promote post-conflict reconciliation.Weiss, Thomas G. and Don Hubert. "The Responsibility to Protect: Supplementary Volume to the Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty." Canada: International Development Research Centre, 2001. This book draws an important link between liberal democracies and the legalist use of war crimes tribunals. It offers case studies of the most historically significant war crimes tribunals.Transitional Justice: How Emerging Democracies Reckon with Former Regimes: General Considerations - Vol. 1. Herndon, VA: United States Institute of Peace Press, September 1, 1995. This volume (first in a series of three) is a compilation of works published elsewhere on the idea of transitional justice. The overall goal of the volume is to compile the many lessons learned by emerging democracies trying to use the rule of law to reckon with the atrocities of their national pasts.
Return to Top
Examples Illustrating this Topic:
Online (Web) Sources
van Metre, Lauren. Dayton Implementation: The Apprehension and Prosecution of Indicted War Criminals. United States Institute of Peace (USIP). Available at: Click here for more info.This report summarizes the recommendations of the USIP Working Group on Dayton Implementation regarding the apprehension and prosecution of war criminals in the former Yugoslavia. Prosecution must be one of the first steps in U.S. policy, since community development and reconciliation cannot begin until such justice has occurred.Wald, Patricia M. "Dealing with Witnesses in War Crime Trials: Lessons from the Yugoslav Tribunal." Yale Human Rights & Development Law Journal, Vol. 5 , 2002Available at: Click here for more info.This article argues that convictions, if they are to be legitimate, must be based on credible evidence presented in a public trial. The conflict between the right of an accused to a public trial and the exceptional pressures on victim witnesses of war crimes is omnipresent in ICTY trials.Fourth Annual Report of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Rwanda. Available at: http://www.un.org/ga/54/doc/tcir.pdf.The report addresses the activities of the Tribunal, including four judgments passed. The first of these was the first conviction for genocide ever delivered by an international court in the case of Prosecutor v. Jean Paul Akayesu.Institute for War and Peace Reporting (IWPR). Available at: http://www.history.com/.IWPR pioneers cross-community editorial projects that supports the independent press in regions in transition and informs the international debate on conflict. The focus of the Institute is on the Balkans, the Caucasus, the Central Asian states, Eastern Europe, and the former Soviet Union. They publish WarReport, and offers electronic reporting and monitoring services via the web or email. This site is searchable and has an excellent list of links.Kritz, Neil J. Rwanda: Accountability for War Crimes and Genocide. United States Institute of Peace (USIP). Available at: http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/early/rwanda1.On September 16, 1994, the USIP convened a meeting to explore options for dealing with war crimes and genocide in Rwanda. Many of the options proposed at the conference were incorporated into a UN Security Council resolution on November 8, 1994, establishing a tribunal for Rwanda. This report contains in-depth analysis of these options in the context of the resolution and makes recommendations for enhancing the effort to bring perpetrators of atrocities in Rwanda and neighboring countries to justice.Dunn, James. "The Indonesian Tribunal: A Matter of Justice or Political Diversion?." Foreign Policy in Focus , August 30, 2002Available at: http://selfdetermine.irc-online.org/crisiswatch/0208timor.html.This article discusses the Indonesian war crimes tribunal investigating events in East Timor in 1999. The author questions whether the tribunal has any real power to convict those who perpetrated the crimes, and if those convictions will stand. He also addresses the possibility that the tribunal is little more than a political stunt, with no real intentions of punishing those who committed the war crimes.
Offline (Print) Sources
Magnarella, Paul J. Justice in Africa, Rwanda's Genocide, Its Courts, and the UN Criminal Tribunal. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Company, February 1, 2000. This book outlines the historical background leading up to the Rwandan genocide of 1994, as well as the subsequent establishment of a UN-sponsored International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha, Tanzania, designed to deal with the atrocities. The resource includes a discussion of the criticisms that followed the Tribunal's establishment.Tutu, Desmond Mpilo. No Future Without Forgiveness. Doubleday, 2000. Desmond Tutu's book outlines the reasons why South Africa preferred a truth and reconciliation commission to a war crimes tribunal. The most compelling reason is that reconciliation is easier following forgiveness and that reconciliation is most important for a nation wishing to build peace from such a negative pastReconciliation via the War Crimes Tribunal?. Aldershot, England: Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 2000. Critical examination of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia Click here for more info.Bass, Gary Jonathan. Stay the Hand of Vengeance: The Politics of War Crimes Tribunals. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2000. Comprehensive study of the history of war crimes tribunals. He argues that the vigor with which war criminals are pursued is directly related to the degree to which troups from liberal democracies will be in harms way in apprehending criminals. Has chapters on St. Helena, Leipzig, Constantinople, Nuremberg, and Yugoslavia.
Return to Top
Audiovisual Materials on this Topic:
Offline (Print) Sources
The Court. First Run Icarus Films. 1982. This film uses case studies to show now the International Court of Justice deals with countries and their leaders, when they commit unjust humanitarian acts. Click here for more info.The Pinochet Case. Directed and/or Produced by: Guzman, Patricio. First Run Icarus Films. 2001. This film follows the international criminal case against Augusto Pinochet of Chile. Click here for more info.Yellow Wasps: Anatomy of a War Crime. Directed and/or Produced by: Ziv, Ilan. First Run Icarus Films. 1995. This film questions whether justice can be found today in a world of global politics, as it monitors the Serbian war crimes trial against the Serbian paramilitary group know as the Yellow Wasps who were involved in atrocities of ethnic cleansing, and who received light sentences for their actions. Click here for more info
International war crimes tribunals are courts of law established to try individuals accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Despite the often heinous nature of the crimes that individuals commit during intractable conflicts, including genocide, torture, and rape, it has become common practice to offer the accused an opportunity to explain his or her actions in front of the victims and their families, as well as the media. Tribunals have almost entirely replaced retributive justice's summary executions. Based on generally agreed-upon international standards of acceptable human behavior, they have introduced a new ethos of liberal legalism for dealing with war crimes.[1]
Why War Crimes Tribunals Matter
Following a conflict, crimes that have exceeded the normal parameters of war behavior (jus in bello) must be dealt with before a society can begin the peacebuilding process of reconciliation. War crimes tribunals do not offer the accused a chance for forgiveness as truth and reconciliation commissions do. Tribunals do, however, offer victims and their families the opportunity to confront those responsible for what happened to them, and hopefully to put the horrors of war behind them. A tribunal can be a forum for honoring the memory of those lost, as well as punishing those responsible.
The war crimes tribunals of Nuremberg and Tokyo, in which legal justice was used to punish the upper echelons of the German and Japanese military following World War II, continue to be regarded as the most successful tribunals to date. The democratic, progressive success of both nations following these tribunals is often given as evidence of the effectiveness of war crimes tribunals in helping a society that has perpetrated war crimes to return to stable diplomatic relations and the road to peace.
The Positive Side of War Crimes Tribunals
Mark Amstutz, a professor at Wheaton College, finds fault with retributive approaches to justice because they do not pay sufficient attention to how individuals are to reconstruct their lives.
One of the arguments in support of war crimes tribunals is that they act as a deterrent to potential war criminals. In fact, this idea is one of the main arguments behind a push to construct a permanent international war crimes tribunal. Currently, tribunals have to be sponsored by an organization like the U.N. or a national government. Without a permanently-established war crimes court, military and government leaders may feel emboldened to commit crimes such as the mass murder of ethnic groups in East Timor in the 1980s and 1990s, or in Rwanda in 1994.
War crimes tribunals offer a rare chance for the world's leaders and citizens to scrutinize both the deplorable decisions made by particular leaders, and the atrocities committed by the soldiers and agents of those leaders. Without such a forum, there would be no method for assuring that the masterminds and perpetrators of genocide and other war crimes are justly punished.
Tribunals also give victims and their families an opportunity to regain a sense of power that may have been lost resulting from a war crime. It is empowering for victims to stand up in a court of law and identify those who wronged them. A war crimes tribunal can also force forgotten or hidden atrocities to be retold by survivors. In this way war criminals living free of judgment are finally forced to accept responsibility for their actions and be judged for what they have done.
For a country attempting to make a transition from a repressive regime to a democracy, war crimes tribunals offer citizens and leaders the opportunity to put their faith in an equitable rule of law. Countries that truly wish to become modern democracies must accept the rule of democratic law and apply it to even their most powerful criminals. While this process takes an enormous effort of national will, nations that successfully conduct tribunals within the bounds of such laws prove they can function without reverting to the undesirable methods of repression and violence. Thus war crimes tribunals have the potential to help emerging democracies discover the benefits of a strong legal system while reconciling past atrocities.[2]
Finally, if all members of a society can agree upon what is unacceptable by trying its war criminals, then it is easier for the society to agree on what is acceptable. A successful war crimes tribunal allows the past to be laid to rest and a peaceful future forged from its results.
The Negative Side of War Crimes Tribunals
Terrence Lyons talks about the balance that lies between providing incentives for dictators to step down and enforcing punishment mechanisms for leaders who have behaved unjustly.
Many argue that war crimes tribunals offer no deterrent to potential criminals whatsoever. People with strong convictions against a certain religious or ethnic group will likely not feel any less hatred for that group just because a possible tribunal looms in the future. Both Hitler and Pol Pot believed they would be revered by future generations for the extreme measures they took to change the makeup of their societies. These leaders were inspired by their visions of the future and it is unlikely the prospect of a war crimes tribunal would have swayed either dictator.
In fact, another argument against tribunals is that men like Hitler and Pol Pot, the leaders of violent movements, are never judged by tribunals for what they do. A war crimes tribunal that tries only middle ranking officers, soldiers, and politicians is not as effective as one that tries the mastermind behind the crimes. The trial of Slobodan Milosevic offers some hope for the future of tribunals. However, if Milosevic is acquitted, that will support another argument against tribunals: often the legal system actually helps the accused avoid punishment. Insufficient evidence, unclear testimony, unsure witnesses, and the inability to directly link crimes with individuals due to chains of command are all factors that can lead to war criminals walking free, with full grace of the court.
Another criticism of war crimes tribunals is that they do not alleviate the underlying causes of the conflict. In fact, tribunals can escalate conflict, especially in a multi-ethnic society. In cases of genocide, those accused of war crimes are usually all from one ethnic group. To this group, a war crimes tribunal can appear to be a trial against their ethnicity, not just an individual from their group. This is especially true when the judicial system fails to fairly represent the whole society. For example, Rwandan Hutus accused of killing Tutsis would doubt in the possibility of a fair trial if only Tutsis were running the tribunal. Other Hutus, including those not accused, would likely feel the same way. Thus the war crimes tribunal could act as a wedge driving the two groups further apart.
This idea leads to another complaint about war crimes tribunals: that they are ineffective in transforming a fractured society into one of stability and peace. Following the end of apartheid in South Africa, the Rev. Desmond Tutu argued against a war crimes tribunal, pushing instead for a truth and reconciliation commission. He believed that no reconciliation or transformation was possible if the accused were not forgiven. War crimes tribunals necessarily demonize individuals and sometimes whole groups, further separating parties, instead of building peace.[3]
Possibly the most powerful argument against war crimes tribunals is that they offer only the victors justice. What was most obviously missing following World War II was not Hitler at Nuremberg, but a trial for Americans, French, British, and Russian individuals who committed acts that would have been considered war crimes had the Allies lost the war. The fire bombing of Dresden and the use of atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are clear examples of acts for which Allied leaders would have been tried had the war ended in favor of the Germans and Japanese. While it is easy and satisfying to put the enemy in prison for what he or she has done, it does not seem entirely fair if all those who participate in a war are not held to the same standards. In fact, one of the reasons that the United States has so far failed to support an international war crimes tribunal, the International Criminal Court, is fear that U.S. officers would be found guilty by the court. The United States also fears that this Court could be used for political revenge against the world's only superpower.
The Creation of an International Criminal Court
Sarah Cobb describes the importance of framing values clearly in one's narratives.
The International Criminal Court (I.C.C.) was officially established on July 1, 2002, and is located in The Hague, The Netherlands. However, all of the world's nations have not ratified the Rome Statute of the I.C.C., the document outlining the purposes, capabilities, and restrictions of the I.C.C. In fact, the United States, Russia, and Japan are among the major industrialized states that have yet to ratify this document. However, a sufficient number of nations have ratified the Rome Statute, and in accordance with its rules, the court now officially exists.
A key component of the I.C.C. is that only war crimes committed after the I.C.C.'s establishment can fall under its jurisdiction. Another aspect is that only those nations that ratify the document will fall under its jurisdiction. In general, the I.C.C. will have jurisdiction over crimes brought to its attention by outside parties or by its own investigators. The I.C.C. will not replace national tribunals, but will complement them by offering an arena for hearing claims that may be too complicated or extensive for a national court.[4]
One could argue that until all of the nations of the world ratify the Rome Statute, the Court cannot truly be considered an international criminal court. However, the establishment of the Court is a significant step toward the creation of an international system of war crimes justice.
[1] Bass, Gary Jonathan. Stay the Hand of Vengeance: The politics of war crimes tribunals. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000)
[2] Kritz, Neil J. Transitional Justice: How emerging democracies reckon with former regimes. (Washington: USIP, 1995)
[3] Tutu, Desmond Mpilo. No Future Without Forgiveness. (New York: Doubleday, 1999)
[4] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. (United Nations, 1999-2002) [on-line] Available from http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/romefra.htm. Accessed on January 30, 2002.
Use the following to cite this article:McMorran, Chris. "International War Crimes Tribunals." Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: July 2003 <http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/int_war_crime_tribunals/>.
Sources of Additional, In-depth Information on this Topic
Additional Explanations of the Underlying Concepts:
Online (Web) Sources
Brahm, Eric. "Burying the Past: Making Peace and Doing Justice After Civil Conflict -- Summary." Conflict Research Consortium, 2000. Available at: http://www.beyondintractability.org/booksummary/10047/.This is a summary of Nigel Biggar's "Burying the Past: Making Peace and Doing Justice After Civil Conflict."Brahm, Eric. "Closing the Books: Transitional Justice in Historical Perspective -- Summary." Conflict Research Consortium, 2000. Available at: http://www.beyondintractability.org/booksummary/10185/.This is a summary of Jon Elster's "Closing the Books: Transitional Justice in Historical Perspective."Brahm, Eric. "Confronting Past Human Rights Violations: Justice vs. Peace in Times of Transition -- Summary." Conflict Research Consortium. Available at: http://www.beyondintractability.org/booksummary/10029/.This is a summary of Chandra Lekha Sriram's "Confronting Past Human Rights Violations: Justice vs. Peace in Times of Transition"Facing History and Ourselves. Available at: http://www.facinghistory.org.This organization is based around helping people to understand the present and future by educating them about the past. It seeks to develop programs that would allow students to think critically about the past by emphasizing morality in history. The website has links to new articles discussing current world events and also provides resources for understanding these events. There are also resources like academic articles, films, books, and teaching tools provided at this site.International Criminal Court Fact Sheet. United Nations. Available at: http://www.un.org/News/facts/iccfact.htm.This United Nations site includes a helpful list of frequently asked questions about the ICC as well as a video of the press conference announcing the formal establishment of the Court. Nuremberg War Crimes Trials. Available at: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/imt.htm.This site offers a comprehensive list of documents related to the Nuremberg war trials.Smith, Charles Anthony. "The Primacy of Politics: Justice, Power, and War Crimes Trials." Online Journal of Peace and Conflict Resolution, Vol. 2, No. 3 , 1999Available at: http://www.trinstitute.org/ojpcr/2_3smith.htm.This online article discusses the purposes behind war crimes tribunals, namely political trials versus trials seeking justice.Cassette, Jacquie. "Towards Justice in the Wake of Armed Conflicts?: The Evolution of War Crimes Tribunals." African Security Review, Vol. 9, No. 5/6 , 2000Available at: http://www.iss.co.za/Pubs/ASR/9No5And6/Cassette.html."This article traces the history and development of war crimes tribunals in the context of the development of international criminal law, with the emphasis on the establishment of the ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and in hopeful anticipation of the establishment of a permanent international criminal court." "War Crimes Tribunals/Truth Commissions." , 2002Available at: Click here for more info."International or domestic war crimes tribunals and domestic war crimes trials investigate and prosecute war crimes and genocide where massive violations of human rights have been perpetrated, usually by military, para-military and political organizations associated with a government, often having incited civilians to participate in the violations. Commissions of inquiry and truth commissions investigate and publish war crimes and genocide." This page includes all the pertinent information regarding war crimes tribunals and truth commissions as tools in conflict prevention and resolution.
Offline (Print) Sources
Biggar, Nigel, ed. Burying the Past: Making Peace and Doing Justice after Civil Conflict. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, March 2001. This is a collection of essays drawn together by Nigel Biggar (Professor of Theology at the University of Leeds) that explores the challenges of establishing democracy after a period of violent and prolonged civil conflict. Relationships within the populace must be restored so that reprisals and revenge do not undermine or subvert emerging democratic processes. Click here for more info.Elster, Jon. Closing the Books: Transitional Justice in Historical Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, September 6, 2004. This books examines historical examples of the process of transitional justice. It discusses how different countries have dealt with the fall of regimes, war criminals, and moving past the memories of conflict. Click here for more info.Sriram, Chandra Lekha. Confronting Past Human Rights Violations: Justice vs. Peace in Times of Transition. New York: Frank Cass, 2004. This book challenges transitional justice literature, which aruges that in a period of transition governments much choose between ensuring peace and attaining justice. This Sriram believes that there is a peace and justice continuum and rather than putting the two in competition with each other. Click here for more info.Akhavan, Payam. "Beyond Impunity: Can International Criminal Justice Prevent Future Atrocities?." American Journal of International Law 95:1, January 2001. Akhaven looks at the "determinate causes" of large-scale violence and determines that, despite an "inverted morality [that] has elevated otherwise 'deviant' crimes to the highest expression of group loyalty," international stigmatization of criminal conduct may have significant influence and promote post-conflict reconciliation.Weiss, Thomas G. and Don Hubert. "The Responsibility to Protect: Supplementary Volume to the Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty." Canada: International Development Research Centre, 2001. This book draws an important link between liberal democracies and the legalist use of war crimes tribunals. It offers case studies of the most historically significant war crimes tribunals.Transitional Justice: How Emerging Democracies Reckon with Former Regimes: General Considerations - Vol. 1. Herndon, VA: United States Institute of Peace Press, September 1, 1995. This volume (first in a series of three) is a compilation of works published elsewhere on the idea of transitional justice. The overall goal of the volume is to compile the many lessons learned by emerging democracies trying to use the rule of law to reckon with the atrocities of their national pasts.
Return to Top
Examples Illustrating this Topic:
Online (Web) Sources
van Metre, Lauren. Dayton Implementation: The Apprehension and Prosecution of Indicted War Criminals. United States Institute of Peace (USIP). Available at: Click here for more info.This report summarizes the recommendations of the USIP Working Group on Dayton Implementation regarding the apprehension and prosecution of war criminals in the former Yugoslavia. Prosecution must be one of the first steps in U.S. policy, since community development and reconciliation cannot begin until such justice has occurred.Wald, Patricia M. "Dealing with Witnesses in War Crime Trials: Lessons from the Yugoslav Tribunal." Yale Human Rights & Development Law Journal, Vol. 5 , 2002Available at: Click here for more info.This article argues that convictions, if they are to be legitimate, must be based on credible evidence presented in a public trial. The conflict between the right of an accused to a public trial and the exceptional pressures on victim witnesses of war crimes is omnipresent in ICTY trials.Fourth Annual Report of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Rwanda. Available at: http://www.un.org/ga/54/doc/tcir.pdf.The report addresses the activities of the Tribunal, including four judgments passed. The first of these was the first conviction for genocide ever delivered by an international court in the case of Prosecutor v. Jean Paul Akayesu.Institute for War and Peace Reporting (IWPR). Available at: http://www.history.com/.IWPR pioneers cross-community editorial projects that supports the independent press in regions in transition and informs the international debate on conflict. The focus of the Institute is on the Balkans, the Caucasus, the Central Asian states, Eastern Europe, and the former Soviet Union. They publish WarReport, and offers electronic reporting and monitoring services via the web or email. This site is searchable and has an excellent list of links.Kritz, Neil J. Rwanda: Accountability for War Crimes and Genocide. United States Institute of Peace (USIP). Available at: http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/early/rwanda1.On September 16, 1994, the USIP convened a meeting to explore options for dealing with war crimes and genocide in Rwanda. Many of the options proposed at the conference were incorporated into a UN Security Council resolution on November 8, 1994, establishing a tribunal for Rwanda. This report contains in-depth analysis of these options in the context of the resolution and makes recommendations for enhancing the effort to bring perpetrators of atrocities in Rwanda and neighboring countries to justice.Dunn, James. "The Indonesian Tribunal: A Matter of Justice or Political Diversion?." Foreign Policy in Focus , August 30, 2002Available at: http://selfdetermine.irc-online.org/crisiswatch/0208timor.html.This article discusses the Indonesian war crimes tribunal investigating events in East Timor in 1999. The author questions whether the tribunal has any real power to convict those who perpetrated the crimes, and if those convictions will stand. He also addresses the possibility that the tribunal is little more than a political stunt, with no real intentions of punishing those who committed the war crimes.
Offline (Print) Sources
Magnarella, Paul J. Justice in Africa, Rwanda's Genocide, Its Courts, and the UN Criminal Tribunal. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Company, February 1, 2000. This book outlines the historical background leading up to the Rwandan genocide of 1994, as well as the subsequent establishment of a UN-sponsored International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha, Tanzania, designed to deal with the atrocities. The resource includes a discussion of the criticisms that followed the Tribunal's establishment.Tutu, Desmond Mpilo. No Future Without Forgiveness. Doubleday, 2000. Desmond Tutu's book outlines the reasons why South Africa preferred a truth and reconciliation commission to a war crimes tribunal. The most compelling reason is that reconciliation is easier following forgiveness and that reconciliation is most important for a nation wishing to build peace from such a negative pastReconciliation via the War Crimes Tribunal?. Aldershot, England: Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 2000. Critical examination of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia Click here for more info.Bass, Gary Jonathan. Stay the Hand of Vengeance: The Politics of War Crimes Tribunals. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2000. Comprehensive study of the history of war crimes tribunals. He argues that the vigor with which war criminals are pursued is directly related to the degree to which troups from liberal democracies will be in harms way in apprehending criminals. Has chapters on St. Helena, Leipzig, Constantinople, Nuremberg, and Yugoslavia.
Return to Top
Audiovisual Materials on this Topic:
Offline (Print) Sources
The Court. First Run Icarus Films. 1982. This film uses case studies to show now the International Court of Justice deals with countries and their leaders, when they commit unjust humanitarian acts. Click here for more info.The Pinochet Case. Directed and/or Produced by: Guzman, Patricio. First Run Icarus Films. 2001. This film follows the international criminal case against Augusto Pinochet of Chile. Click here for more info.Yellow Wasps: Anatomy of a War Crime. Directed and/or Produced by: Ziv, Ilan. First Run Icarus Films. 1995. This film questions whether justice can be found today in a world of global politics, as it monitors the Serbian war crimes trial against the Serbian paramilitary group know as the Yellow Wasps who were involved in atrocities of ethnic cleansing, and who received light sentences for their actions. Click here for more info
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
ICC a hybrided civil system of evidence
Why do you believe that the tribunals lack evidentiary standards (cite?)? Recall that the vast majority of the world community does not adhere to a Common Law system, but rather relies on the judge-made law of the Civil Law system. Many would sugest that the tribunals actually have a larger body of law to draw upon (conceiveably anything in International Law), and would therefore be more likely to come to a just outcome that the ICC which (if bound by rules of stare decisis, as you suggest below) would have a much more limited body of decisions from which to draw its reasoning.
Finally, tribunals are not perceived by many as being conceived ex nihilio (or, "out of nothing" for those new to latin...lol), but rather, out of the context of a more traditional international prosecution. While the ICC may be very "comfortable" to americans, as it contains some of the aspects of our legal system (as described above), we must remain aware that in the context of international prosecution (or International Law in the larger sense...), this is a very new concept/institution.
Prof Cummings
Prof. Cummings
The evidentiary standards of the ICC are much more delineated and specified to preset definitions and standards than in the trials of the ICJ where cases do not allude to former case law as one would expect in a civil system, you are quite right. However, the ICC does adhere to a specific format regarding admissibility in adhering to stages of proceedings as noted below which is not present in the ICJ procedings. Such procedings bespeaks to my mind a more than coincidental correlation to federal standards of evidence as I have purviewed them on Lexis..In chapter 4,section 1,rules 63-75 below alluded to are rules enunciated as principles not present in the ICJ lexicon, to be sure.This earmarks more than a civil system, but a hybrid composed of the elements of common law rulings on evidence which have been codified in anglo american law and stare decisis,but codified from their ulings in specific court cases and statutes.Note the underlined sectons below regarding admissibility,inspection and disclosure. The similarity of standards ,though encased in a civil type of system. are resonated in our discovery and evidentiary standards in our common law,but established by ruies of the court and by the Rome statute.Note epecially rule 73 regarding priveleged communications. These rules were stated not capriciously, but with the intent of focus not heretofore made in the canons of international law as applied to the specific crimes over which the ICC has jurisdiction.They have taken common law standards more in focus and enabled statutes in a civil frame of reference.The need for this was made manifest in the Rome statute dealing with thee unique crimes.The larger body of law to draw upon has not been done in the modus opeerandi of stare decisis as has occured in U.S. Supreme Court decisions , and that is what I indicated by the term "ex nihilo" insofar a a clear citing of allusions has not occured as in our Supreme Court cases explaining the holdings of cases specifically. The ad hoc manner contains a lack of such explication, though exegesis is done differently in the civil asystem. The borrowings are evident and hybrided into a statute arrangement in the civil mode, I believe.The larger body of law has not been sytematized to fit the specific crimes under which the ICC has suzerainty nor codified into specific digests of compilation as has occured in our law.The limited body of law to draw on by the ICC would not be applicable as the ICC could still draw on the resources of the ICJ through their cooperative agreements whch was why those agreements were made iniotially but applied to a recodified civil system of the Rome statute and the rules of the ICC.
Finally, tribunals are not perceived by many as being conceived ex nihilio (or, "out of nothing" for those new to latin...lol), but rather, out of the context of a more traditional international prosecution. While the ICC may be very "comfortable" to americans, as it contains some of the aspects of our legal system (as described above), we must remain aware that in the context of international prosecution (or International Law in the larger sense...), this is a very new concept/institution.
Prof Cummings
Prof. Cummings
The evidentiary standards of the ICC are much more delineated and specified to preset definitions and standards than in the trials of the ICJ where cases do not allude to former case law as one would expect in a civil system, you are quite right. However, the ICC does adhere to a specific format regarding admissibility in adhering to stages of proceedings as noted below which is not present in the ICJ procedings. Such procedings bespeaks to my mind a more than coincidental correlation to federal standards of evidence as I have purviewed them on Lexis..In chapter 4,section 1,rules 63-75 below alluded to are rules enunciated as principles not present in the ICJ lexicon, to be sure.This earmarks more than a civil system, but a hybrid composed of the elements of common law rulings on evidence which have been codified in anglo american law and stare decisis,but codified from their ulings in specific court cases and statutes.Note the underlined sectons below regarding admissibility,inspection and disclosure. The similarity of standards ,though encased in a civil type of system. are resonated in our discovery and evidentiary standards in our common law,but established by ruies of the court and by the Rome statute.Note epecially rule 73 regarding priveleged communications. These rules were stated not capriciously, but with the intent of focus not heretofore made in the canons of international law as applied to the specific crimes over which the ICC has jurisdiction.They have taken common law standards more in focus and enabled statutes in a civil frame of reference.The need for this was made manifest in the Rome statute dealing with thee unique crimes.The larger body of law to draw upon has not been done in the modus opeerandi of stare decisis as has occured in U.S. Supreme Court decisions , and that is what I indicated by the term "ex nihilo" insofar a a clear citing of allusions has not occured as in our Supreme Court cases explaining the holdings of cases specifically. The ad hoc manner contains a lack of such explication, though exegesis is done differently in the civil asystem. The borrowings are evident and hybrided into a statute arrangement in the civil mode, I believe.The larger body of law has not been sytematized to fit the specific crimes under which the ICC has suzerainty nor codified into specific digests of compilation as has occured in our law.The limited body of law to draw on by the ICC would not be applicable as the ICC could still draw on the resources of the ICJ through their cooperative agreements whch was why those agreements were made iniotially but applied to a recodified civil system of the Rome statute and the rules of the ICC.
Monday, June 6, 2011
Particle Physics and Experiments with antimatter
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20110605/sc_livescience/ephemeralantimattertrappedforamazinglylong16minutes
Ephemeral Antimatter Trapped for Amazingly Long 16 Minutes
YAHOO = window.YAHOO {}; YAHOO.Media = YAHOO.Media {}; YAHOO.Media.SocialButtons = YAHOO.Media.SocialButtons {};
(function(){
var o_facebook_iframe_url="http://l.yimg.com/b/social_buttons/facebook-share-iframe.php?u={url}&t={title}";
YAHOO.Media.SocialButtons.conf = {
tracking: {
_S: 97631923,
pkg: "http:\/\/news.yahoo.com\/s\/livescience\/20110605\/sc_livescience\/ephemeralantimattertrappedforamazinglylong16minutes",
intl: 'us', lang: 'en-US', ct:'a'
},
content: {
url: "http:\/\/news.yahoo.com\/s\/livescience\/20110605\/sc_livescience\/ephemeralantimattertrappedforamazinglylong16minutes",
title: "Ephemeral+Antimatter+Trapped+for+Amazingly+Long+16+Minutes+-+Yahoo%21+News",
mail_locale: "us",
mail_property: "news",
mail_meta: "&h1=livescience/20110605/sc_livescience/ephemeralantimattertrappedforamazinglylong16minutes&h2=T&h3=2838",
print_url: "http:\/\/news.yahoo.com\/s\/livescience\/20110605\/sc_livescience\/ephemeralantimattertrappedforamazinglylong16minutes\/print" },
config: { facebook_iframe_url: o_facebook_iframe_url }
};
})();
Share
retweet
Email
Print
LiveScience StaffLiveScience.com Livescience Stafflivescience.com – Mon Jun 6, 2:25 am ET
Antimatter, an elusive type of matter that's rare in the universe, has now been trapped for more than 16 minutes — an eternity in particle physics.
In fact, scientists who've been trapping antihydrogen atoms at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) in Geneva say isolating the exotic particles has become so routine that they expect to soon begin experiments on this rare substance.
Antimatter is like a mirror image of matter. For every matter particle (a hydrogen atom, for example), a matching antimatter particle is thought to exist (in this case, an antihydrogen atom) with the same mass, but the opposite charge.
"We've trapped antihydrogen atoms for as long as 1,000 seconds, which is forever" in the world of high-energy particle physics, said Joel Fajans, a University of California, Berkeley professor of physics who is a faculty scientist at California's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and a member of the ALPHA (Antihydrogen Laser Physics Apparatus) experiment at CERN.
Trapping antimatter is difficult, because when it comes into contact with matter, the two annihilate each other. So a container for antimatter can't be made of regular matter, but is usually formed with magnetic fields.
In the ALPHA project, the researchers captured antihydrogen by mixing antiprotons with positrons — antielectrons — in a vacuum chamber, where they combine into antihydrogen atoms.
The whole process occurred within a magnetic "bottle" that takes advantage of the magnetic properties of the antiatoms to keep them contained. An actual bottle, made of ordinary matter, would not be able to hold antimatter because when the two types of matter meet they annihilate.
After the researchers had trapped antimatter in the magnetic bottle, they could then detect the trapped antiatoms by turning off the magnetic field and allowing the particles to annihiliate with normal matter, which creates a flash of light.
The team has now managed to capture 112 antiatoms in this new trap for times ranging from one-fifth of a second to 1,000 seconds, or 16 minutes and 40 seconds. (To date, since the beginning of the project, Fajans and his colleagues have trapped 309 antihydrogen atoms in various traps.)
And the researchers plan to improve on that, with the "hope that by 2012 we will have a new trap with laser access to allow spectroscopic experiments on the antiatoms," Fajans said in a statement. Those experiments would give researchers more information on the antimatter's properties.
In that way, it could help to answer a question that has long plagued physicists: Why is there only ordinary matter in our universe? Scientists think antimatter and matter should have been produced in equal amounts during the Big Bang that created the universe 13.6 billion years ago. [The Coolest Little Particles in Nature]
Today, however, there is no evidence of antimatter galaxies or clouds, and antimatter is seen rarely and for only short periods, for example, during some types of radioactive decay before it annihilates in a collision with normal matter.
The researchers detail their work on the antimatter trap in a new paper published online June 5 in the journal Nature Physics.
Follow LiveScience for the latest in science news and discoveries on Twitter @livescience and on Facebook.
Strange Quarks and Muons, Oh My! Nature's Tiniest Particles Dissected
Wacky Physics: The Coolest Little Particles in Nature
Twisted Physics: 7 Mind-Blowing Findings
Ephemeral Antimatter Trapped for Amazingly Long 16 Minutes
YAHOO = window.YAHOO {}; YAHOO.Media = YAHOO.Media {}; YAHOO.Media.SocialButtons = YAHOO.Media.SocialButtons {};
(function(){
var o_facebook_iframe_url="http://l.yimg.com/b/social_buttons/facebook-share-iframe.php?u={url}&t={title}";
YAHOO.Media.SocialButtons.conf = {
tracking: {
_S: 97631923,
pkg: "http:\/\/news.yahoo.com\/s\/livescience\/20110605\/sc_livescience\/ephemeralantimattertrappedforamazinglylong16minutes",
intl: 'us', lang: 'en-US', ct:'a'
},
content: {
url: "http:\/\/news.yahoo.com\/s\/livescience\/20110605\/sc_livescience\/ephemeralantimattertrappedforamazinglylong16minutes",
title: "Ephemeral+Antimatter+Trapped+for+Amazingly+Long+16+Minutes+-+Yahoo%21+News",
mail_locale: "us",
mail_property: "news",
mail_meta: "&h1=livescience/20110605/sc_livescience/ephemeralantimattertrappedforamazinglylong16minutes&h2=T&h3=2838",
print_url: "http:\/\/news.yahoo.com\/s\/livescience\/20110605\/sc_livescience\/ephemeralantimattertrappedforamazinglylong16minutes\/print" },
config: { facebook_iframe_url: o_facebook_iframe_url }
};
})();
Share
retweet
LiveScience StaffLiveScience.com Livescience Stafflivescience.com – Mon Jun 6, 2:25 am ET
Antimatter, an elusive type of matter that's rare in the universe, has now been trapped for more than 16 minutes — an eternity in particle physics.
In fact, scientists who've been trapping antihydrogen atoms at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) in Geneva say isolating the exotic particles has become so routine that they expect to soon begin experiments on this rare substance.
Antimatter is like a mirror image of matter. For every matter particle (a hydrogen atom, for example), a matching antimatter particle is thought to exist (in this case, an antihydrogen atom) with the same mass, but the opposite charge.
"We've trapped antihydrogen atoms for as long as 1,000 seconds, which is forever" in the world of high-energy particle physics, said Joel Fajans, a University of California, Berkeley professor of physics who is a faculty scientist at California's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and a member of the ALPHA (Antihydrogen Laser Physics Apparatus) experiment at CERN.
Trapping antimatter is difficult, because when it comes into contact with matter, the two annihilate each other. So a container for antimatter can't be made of regular matter, but is usually formed with magnetic fields.
In the ALPHA project, the researchers captured antihydrogen by mixing antiprotons with positrons — antielectrons — in a vacuum chamber, where they combine into antihydrogen atoms.
The whole process occurred within a magnetic "bottle" that takes advantage of the magnetic properties of the antiatoms to keep them contained. An actual bottle, made of ordinary matter, would not be able to hold antimatter because when the two types of matter meet they annihilate.
After the researchers had trapped antimatter in the magnetic bottle, they could then detect the trapped antiatoms by turning off the magnetic field and allowing the particles to annihiliate with normal matter, which creates a flash of light.
The team has now managed to capture 112 antiatoms in this new trap for times ranging from one-fifth of a second to 1,000 seconds, or 16 minutes and 40 seconds. (To date, since the beginning of the project, Fajans and his colleagues have trapped 309 antihydrogen atoms in various traps.)
And the researchers plan to improve on that, with the "hope that by 2012 we will have a new trap with laser access to allow spectroscopic experiments on the antiatoms," Fajans said in a statement. Those experiments would give researchers more information on the antimatter's properties.
In that way, it could help to answer a question that has long plagued physicists: Why is there only ordinary matter in our universe? Scientists think antimatter and matter should have been produced in equal amounts during the Big Bang that created the universe 13.6 billion years ago. [The Coolest Little Particles in Nature]
Today, however, there is no evidence of antimatter galaxies or clouds, and antimatter is seen rarely and for only short periods, for example, during some types of radioactive decay before it annihilates in a collision with normal matter.
The researchers detail their work on the antimatter trap in a new paper published online June 5 in the journal Nature Physics.
Follow LiveScience for the latest in science news and discoveries on Twitter @livescience and on Facebook.
Strange Quarks and Muons, Oh My! Nature's Tiniest Particles Dissected
Wacky Physics: The Coolest Little Particles in Nature
Twisted Physics: 7 Mind-Blowing Findings
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)