Search Results

Abstract

The project of governance, which has been heralded as a contemporary advance in the development of international law, has a very old lineage. Since the beginnings of the modern discipline of international law in the sixteenth century, international law has devised a number of doctrines directed at shaping and reforming the government of the non-European State. This Paper argues that good governance exerts an extraordinarily powerful influence on the thinking of the international community in part because it is connected with human rights, the universal language in this "age of rights". The link suggests that the Third World State is the focus of concern: it is the aberrant Third World State which both violates rights and engages in bad governance. The Paper critiques the stance that the problem of addressing international justice can be largely achieved through the project of good governance which would reform the Third World State. It seeks to argue that democratic experimentalism, not the so-called "McDonaldization" (globalization as homogenization) of the world, is important. This is based on the premise that "McDonaldization" minimizes the complex way in which the local interacts with the international.

In: International Community Law Review

The tragedy which befell Rwanda in 1994 deserves a special place in the bloodstained pages of history. The Rwandan genocide merits distinction primarily because of its shocking ef ficiency, its scale and its proportional dimensions among the victim population. The Security Council's resolution establishing the ICTR articulates a set of decisions, assumptions, wishes, and objectives. Primarily, the States that voted in favour of the creation of the ICTR indicated that the root of the problem was

individual violations

of international criminal law. Only one State that voted for the resolution did not equate

ipso facto

ICTR actions with justice. That State considered the ICTR only one of the many tasks at hand for the international community. The ICTR was merely a vehicle of justice, 'but it is hardly designed as a vehicle for reconciliation . . . Reconciliation is a much more complicated process' (Czech Republic). Interestingly, Rwanda, which voted against the resolution, spoke of the problem in terms of a

culture of impunity

. The UN paid little to no heed to the subtle, but extremely different way in which the problem was characterized and the implications this would have on the type of tool needed to deal with that problem.

In: Nordic Journal of International Law
In: The Arab Spring