issued a warrant for a head of state, it in effect shook the entire government structure and government officials involved in the genocide. [T]here is a very serious downside risk to indicting a sitting head of state, in fact, indicting an entire government structure, when there are no basically measures in place, no mechanisms, actually to protect the people in whose name this is being we all support justice, but can issued…Now, yes, justice be pursued at the expense of withdrawing essential humanitarian support that keep millions of people alive (de Waal 2009)? While the decision appeared to jeopardize the structure, it cannot be ICC’s government’s described as rushed or ill-advised. Over a six year period, the Court surely has thought of alternative methods of bringing Bashir to justice. Not every plan is perfect, and there will be complications. But again we are brought back to the original question of justice: whose agenda is more important, the ICC indicting a government for crimes against humanity, or risking the security of the Sudanese people in an effort to rid them of a malicious leader? In passing, de Waal (2009) mentions an important matter at crimes were committed hand, “The horrendous 2003, 2004, and not being we return to the initial problem of they’re remedied.” Again commutative justice. In removing the person charged with these crimes, the victims of them are not and cannot be rectified. There can be no action that will replace the harm done to the The expulsion of these groups was not an order from the ICC itself, it was a victims’ family. largely political decision on part, and more importantly, a largely unforeseen one. His Bashir’s ongoing efforts to subjugate the people in Darfur is all the more reason that he should be brought to justice; that action alone cannot be held accountable on the ICC; it was a decision independent of the initial arrest warrant, though it does appear that it was a result of it. Tax Freidman’s Negative-Income
issued a warrant for a head of state, it in effect shook the entire government structure and government officials involved in the genocide. [T]here is a very serious downside risk to indicting a sitting head of state, in fact, basically indicting an entire government structure, when there are no measures in place, no mechanisms, actually to protect the people in whose name this is being issued…Now, yes, we all support justice, but can justice be pursued at the expense of withdrawing essential humanitarian support that keep millions of people alive (de Waal 2009)? While the ICC’s decision appeared to jeopardize the government’s structure, it cannot be described as rushed or ill-advised. Over a six year period, the Court surely has thought of alternative methods of bringing Bashir to justice. Not every plan is perfect, and there will be complications. But again we are brought back to the original question of justice: whose agenda is more important, the ICC indicting a government for crimes against humanity, or risking the security of the Sudanese people in an effort to rid them of a malicious leader? In passing, de Waal (2009) mentions an important matter at hand, “The horrendous crimes were committed 2003, 2004, and they’re not being remedied.” Again we return to the initial problem of commutative justice. In removing the person charged with these crimes, the victims of them are not and cannot be rectified. There can be no action that will replace the harm done to the victims’ family. The expulsion of these groups was not an order from the ICC itself, it was a largely political decision on Bashir’s part, and more importantly, a largely unforeseen one. His ongoing efforts to subjugate the people in Darfur is all the more reason that he should be brought to justice; that action alone cannot be held accountable on the ICC; it was a decision independent of the initial arrest warrant, though it does appear that it was a result of it. Freidman’s Negative-Income Tax
freer%20Justice%20for%20All%20Peer%20Review%20Version.docx