jump to navigation

David Davenport’s remarks to the ICC Prosecutor’s forum on the Palestinian Declaration Concerning Gaza October 20, 2010

Posted by daviddavenport in Policy Articles & Papers.
Tags:
comments closed

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Prosecutor, the matters before us today are interesting, important and difficult. But may I submit to you that they are really more interesting today as academic debates in a journal or forum. They are difficult primarily for a political body such as the UN Security Council, or a policy-making body, such as the Assembly of States Parties. They are less difficult for a prosecutor of a criminal court whose discretion is limited in such matters to the law as it is, as it was when the alleged crimes took place.

Very briefly I will list three reasons why the OTP’s decision here is actually relatively clear.

I.  The Treaty of Rome and the ICC are State-Based, with their Jurisdictional Provisions Carefully Negotiated and Precisely Stated

I know there are those who believe the state-based underpinnings of international law or too limiting, even anachronistic, and need to be changed. They argue, as one paper asserts here, that the court should not be limited by the literal meaning of a word like “state,” that the Court is free to make up its own meaning based on practical realities.  Another urges a so-called teleological approach where everything is defined by the ultimate purposes of the treaty.

But first, every account of the negotiation of the Rome Treaty—whether by the founding president of the Court, or one of its distinguished judges, or by scholars and observers—agrees that the jurisdictional aspects of this Court were the most hotly debated topics in Rome.  Some wanted a court of very limited jurisdiction while others sought an expansive court of universal jurisdiction.  In the end, Article 12, with its clear limitation to states, was part of that elaborate negotiation and compromise, one not subject to redefinition by the OTP or even the Court itself.

Second, the last place where law would countenance teleology or creative expansion is in a criminal court, where the law rightly requires that clear, bright lines be drawn and followed.  Why?

–Because of the extremely serious consequences of criminal prosecution.

–Because defendants deserve to know where the lines of criminal conduct and criminal jurisdiction are drawn.

–Because criminal matters cannot be redefined to, in effect, create jurisdiction after the fact.

On this point, I think everyone at Rome in 1998, and everyone familiar with the Court in 2008 when the acts complained of here occurred, would have said precisely what you did when first presented with the matter:  Israel is not a party to the Court and Palestine is not a state, so there is no jurisdiction.

That being so, it is really not the role of criminal courts and criminal prosecutors to go back now and define terms beyond their obvious meaning.  That debate, if it is to be had at all, must be held in a political body, such as the U.N. Security Council, or in a policy-making body, such as the Assembly of States Parties, not in the OTP of a criminal court.

II.   A Decision that the Palestinian Declaration is Sufficient Under Article 12 Would Have Profound Consequences

A.  Loss of confidence in the Court

One set of reservations about the Court from the beginning has been whether it would seek expansive jurisdiction or would become engaged in primarily political matters.  To its credit, the OTP has largely steered clear of such concerns, but a finding that “state” means more than “state” will erode confidence in the Court.

B.  Inappropriate intrusion in the Middle East peace process

It’s simply not possible for the Court to make a limited finding of statehood for Article 12(3) purposes without having other repercussions on the Middle East peace process.  The two-state solution, the Oslo Accords (with their limits on the PA’s external relations capabilities), and the complex situation on the ground in Gaza are all bound up in this.  I even have concern that by considering an investigation for a year and a half, the Court is already too deeply involved in the Middle East peace process, given its charter.

C.  Open door to non-state entities seeking international validation

Is the Court really prepared to entertain submissions from Chechnya, North and South Ossetia, Tibet, or groups from Sudan, Iraqi Kurdistan or the Basque region?  The limited resources of the Court could easily be consumed by its becoming a step on the road to statehood, following any decision to accept the Palestinian submission.

III.  Preventing Impunity Leads to No Different Conclusion

The Court, of course, seeks to prevent impunity, but only within its own carefully drafted charter and limits.  To say that if the Court does not act, its purposes will not be served is simply incorrect:

A.  It is a matter which Israel itself can, and has, taken up within its own legal systems.

B.  The U.N. Security Council, which has been the primary decision-maker on war crimes prosecutions, also has jurisdiction to act, jurisdiction, which, I might add, will be taken inappropriately if the Court acts here.

C.  Even individual states with laws of universal jurisdiction may bring actions here.

So it is simply not true that, in the absence of action by the ICC, no one else may act and impunity will result.

I would urge the Prosecutor to exercise restraint and not intervene further in this matter.

News Coverage of ICC Prosecutor’s Forum (New York Times) October 20, 2010

Posted by daviddavenport in Policy Articles & Papers.
Tags:
comments closed

Below is the link to the article that appeared in the NY Times entitled “Palestinians Consider Shift on Statehood” by Ethan Bronner, October 20, 2010http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/world/middleeast/21mideast.html?src=twrhp

ICC in Gaza October 15, 2010

Posted by daviddavenport in Policy Articles & Papers.
Tags:
comments closed

David is one of the international law scholars presenting to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court this week (10/20/10) based on the following paper he submitted to the Prosecutor in November, 2009.  Please click on the link below to read the paper:

http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/D3C77FA6-9DEE-45B1-ACC0-B41706BB41E5/281873/Paldeclandiccjurisd.pdf
 

Power to the people, with Gordon Lloyd (San Francisco Chronicle) October 27, 2003

Posted by daviddavenport in Newspaper Columns/Essays, Op/Eds, Policy Articles & Papers.
Tags:
comments closed

It sounds like the plot of a Tom Clancy novel but, in reality, it is the subject of congressional hearings and proposed legislation. If a nuclear device or a crashing airplane strikes the U.S. Capitol, killing a hundred or more members of Congress, how will government be reconstituted? Since Sept. 11, 2001, this is no longer fiction. Democratic presidential counselor Lloyd Cutler and former Senate Whip Alan Simpson, a Republican, have co-chaired a joint project of the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution to make recommendations on this topic. Former House Speakers Thomas Foley and Newt Gingrich were among those who served on the commission.

Although everyone agrees that in such an emergency Congress needs to be reconstituted quickly, wise heads have posed some good, hard constitutional questions. Many wish such questions had been asked before rushing the Patriot Act, with its uneasy balance between emergency government powers and individual civil liberties, into law.

The controversy about the continuity of Congress centers on who selects replacement members of the House and whether a constitutional amendment is needed. The main proposal would amend the Constitution to allow governors to appoint temporary replacements to the House in the case of catastrophic loss of 100 or more members. Wisely, some are now questioning whether a constitutional amendment is appropriate, and why “the people’s House,” should be filled by executive appointment rather than by election.

The Constitution has proven to be a remarkably durable document, providing sufficient flexibility for government to preserve itself. The Constitution says that when vacancies occur, elections should be held to fill them, leaving the “times, places and manner” of such elections in the hands of state legislatures, adding that Congress may alter such regulations. The emergency planners — notably Norman Ornstein of AEI — fear that such special elections will be too slow to save the republic, and wish to empower governors to appoint temporary members of Congress, as the 17th Amendment allows. But there’s more at stake.

First, senators represent states and representatives represent people. It is one thing for a governor to appoint a new senator to represent the state, and quite another to allow an executive to override the people’s right to elect their own representatives. Further, as California has demonstrated, even complex special elections with 135 candidates can be held with surprising dispatch. A study of states with special election time-limits shows some allow as few as 28 days, with California at 63 days and New York allowing 30 to 40 days. Clearly such replacement elections could be held quickly, in 30 days or less.

A second fundamental question is why a constitutional amendment? This process alone could take two or three years, and Congress already has the power to preserve itself. Why not give Congress a chance to find a practical solution first and avoid dangerous tinkering with the Constitution.

Do we really want to shift yet more power away from the people and into the hands of the administrative state? Must we disenfranchise the people and ask one elected official to appoint other representative officials? No, let Congress ask state legislatures to submit their plans for emergency elections instead of passing more federal laws or constitutional amendments.

Life is full of contingencies and it is neither possible nor desirable to redraft the Constitution to anticipate every one. Each time we do that, we remove the power of self-government from future generations, the very think the Constitution was meant to protect. Ornstein says holding special elections on short notice is absurd. The real absurdity is removing the people’s ability to elect their own House of Representatives.

This op/ed appeared on Page A-19.