Den internationale straffedomstol -hvorfor det måske alligevel kunne blive en god ide Af Jakob v. H. Holtermann

Den internationale straffedomstol – hvorfor det måske alligevel… “And it ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new.” (Machiavelli, The Prince)

Den internationale straffedomstol – hvorfor det måske alligevel… Disposition: I.Præsentation af ICC: II.Kritikpunkter imod ICC: a)Empirisk usikkerhed b)Folkedrab etc. begås af almindelige mennesker i ekstraordinære kontekster c)Antagelsen om instrumentel rationalitet d)Fred over retfærdighed

Den internationale straffedomstol – hvorfor det måske alligevel… “I believe that a properly constituted and structured International Criminal Court would make a profound contribution in deterring egregious human rights abuses worldwide.” (Clinton 2000)

Den internationale straffedomstol – hvorfor det måske alligevel… “Prevention is cited simply because of the void of alternatives, the rational ones. … International justice comes close to a religious exercise of hope and perhaps of deception.” (Tallgren 2002: 561)

Den internationale straffedomstol – hvorfor det måske alligevel… ”[No] sensible penologist doubt that penalties operate as deterrents.” (Walker 1991: 15) “[T]here is a rebuttable presumption in favor of the view that, ordinarily, people order their affairs roughly in order to maximize their benefits. Without such a presumption, it would be impossible to understand human affairs at all.” (Ellis 2009)

Den internationale straffedomstol – hvorfor det måske alligevel… Påstanden om truslen om straf gennem ICC kan virke afskrækkende: ikke en påstand om at alle vil kunne afskrækkes hele tiden; en påstand om at nogle vil kunne afskrækkes noget af tiden; tilstrækkeligt mange vil kunne afskrækkes til at opveje omkostningerne ved ICC.

Den internationale straffedomstol – hvorfor det måske alligevel… Betingelser for folkedrab etc.: Polarisering Dehumanisering af ”den anden” Konfrontatorisk debatklima Fravær af dialog Dolkestødslegende/egen gruppes offerstatus Følelse af eksistenskamp Etc.

Den internationale straffedomstol – hvorfor det måske alligevel… Bekræftes af gerningsmandsstudier, fx: Browning: Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust Goldhagen: Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland

Den internationale straffedomstol – hvorfor det måske alligevel… ”Violence becomes normalized when neighbors avert their gaze, draw the blinds, and excitedly move into a suddenly available apartment. This broad public participation, despite its catalytic role, is overlooked by criminal law, thereby perpetuating a myth and a deception. The myth is that a handful of people are responsible for endemic levels of violence. The deception […] involves hiding the myriad political, economic, historical, and colonial factors that create conditions precedent for violence.” (Drumbl 2007: 172)

Den internationale straffedomstol – hvorfor det måske alligevel… Gyges ring: “And this we may truly affirm to be a great proof that a man is just, not willingly or because he thinks that justice is any good to him individually, but of necessity, for wherever any one thinks that he can safely be unjust, there he is unjust.” (Plato, The Republic, book 2)

Den internationale straffedomstol – hvorfor det måske alligevel… INUS-betingelse: Utilstrækkelig, men nødvendig del af et unødvendigt, men tilstrækkeligt sæt af betingelser for virkningen.

Den internationale straffedomstol – hvorfor det måske alligevel… Swiss cheese model:

Den internationale straffedomstol – hvorfor det måske alligevel… Individuals who commit atrocity on the scale of genocide are unlikely to behave as “rational actors”, deterred by the risk of punishment (Martha Minow, p. 50). “The theory of prevention in general is vulnerable to the criticism that the potential criminal is unlikely to try consciously and rationally to estimate the benefits and risks of the crime beforehand. In the context of the most serious crimes it is even more relevant to ask how often criminals act in circumstances that are conducive to such considerations.” (Tallgren 2002: 584)

Den internationale straffedomstol – hvorfor det måske alligevel… ”When the various motivations for attacks on civilians are combined – the desire to defend one’s community, hatred of the other side, a belief that civilians are essentially indistinguishable from combatants and therefore a threat, and directions from political and military leaders encouraging such attacks – it is not surprising that a slight risk of future prosecution will not have a major deterrent effect.” (Wippman 1999: 479)

Den internationale straffedomstol – hvorfor det måske alligevel… ”Serb forces in Kosovo routinely wore black ski masks when engaged in ethnic cleansing; as the prospect of NATO control over Kosovo loomed larger, Serb forces intensified efforts to conceal mass graves and hide evidence of criminal conduct.” (Wippman 1999: 480)

Den internationale straffedomstol – hvorfor det måske alligevel… ”Actual experience with efforts at deterrence is not encouraging. … Beginning in 1941, the United States and the United Kingdom issued a series of highly publicized warnings that violations of the laws of war would be punished and that superior orders would not be accepted as a defense. … Similarly, in the former Yugoslavia, the Security Council and various individual states repeatedly warned combatants that those committing atrocities would eventually be prosecuted. But … there is no empirical evidence of effective deterrence in either case.” (Wippman 1999: 474)

Den internationale straffedomstol – hvorfor det måske alligevel… Equity: “Suppose a siege, then a decree that the city gates are to be kept closed is a useful general measure for the public safety. Yet say some citizens among the defenders are being pursued by the enemy, the cost would be heavy were the gates not to be opened to them. So opened they are to be, against the letter of the decree, in order to defend that very common safety the ruling authority had in view.” (Thomas 1964:, 1a2æ. 96, 6)

Den internationale straffedomstol – hvorfor det måske alligevel… “And this is the nature of the equitable, a correction of law where it is defective owing to its universality.” (Aristotle 1987: 1137b26-27)

Den internationale straffedomstol – hvorfor det måske alligevel… “[A]ppeals to equity will justify the kind of appeal to mercy and broader social good that is involved when amnesties are granted instead of holding criminal trials …” (May 2005: 243)

Den internationale straffedomstol – hvorfor det måske alligevel… “Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus” (Let there be justice, though the world perish)

Den internationale straffedomstol – hvorfor det måske alligevel… “Fiat justitia si mundus non periet” (Let there be justice unless it will make the world perish)