Is the International Criminal Court (ICC) a bold but overextended experiment that was doomed from the start? A flawed but resilient institution finding its footing? Or a court caught in an impossible bind?
To help us think through these questions, Institute for Integrated Transitions (IFIT) expert and peace mediator Barney Afako sits down with three leading experts in international justice from IFIT’s global network: Beth Van Schaack, former US Ambassador-at-Large for Global Criminal Justice; Janet Anderson, a veteran journalist who has covered international justice from Rwanda to Sierra Leone to The Hague – as Justice Info’s correspondent; and Phil Clark, professor of international politics at SOAS University of London.
Together they take a hard look at the ICC: its promise, its failures, and whether it has a long-term future, throughout this long, lively conversation lasting nearly 50 minutes. Is the ICC a sucker of oxygen or a provider of oxygen to some forms, in different parts of the world?, questioned Janet Anderson. What is wrong from a prosecutorial perspective, when there is a constant pattern of failed cases at the ICC?, queried Beth Van Schaack. A huge amount of money has been spent for the ICC, and it’s not going to be better than this, shouldn’t we put our money into domestic institutions, seriously?, proposed Phil Clark.
DEAD MEN WALKING
“Dead Men Walking” - Conversations on Global Norms and Institutions - is a new podcast series produced by the Institute for Integrated Transitions (IFIT) in collaboration with Justice Info. In each episode, we bring together leading thinkers and practitioners from IFIT’s 400+ global expert network to take an honest look at the problems afflicting 20th century global norms and institutions and to consider the new ideas needed for a changing world order.
