First off, has anyone found anything worth reading? Am working my way through the reading list, but haven't found anything amazingly useful yet.
Secondly - Grace, I read the question the same way as you; I assumed the word 'tribunal' was used deliberately. I suppose we could talk about the ICC as well, but I had seen it more as a 'the ICC is a better model than the ICTY/R'.
It's true that they were used before the ICC came into existance, however, imo the comparison is still valid because those who committed war crimes are still being tried in the tribunals, rather than under the jurisdiction of the ICC.
I'm not sure wading into philosophical definitions of justice is appropriate in a legal forum, but i guess it could be approached in this way? However, reading the question, the way it's phrased implies that maybe she wants us to examine this point.
Maybe this means there are two things to discuss - the adequecy of tribunals vs a permanent court and then the problems of 'international justice' overall?
amanda
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
No I have not found any particularly good readings, other than a book about the ICC which had some helpful points in it. I think the readings in the course outline are not going to be very helpful, this seems to be more of a 'find it out yourself' sort of subject.
Post a Comment