Diplomats, judges, lawyers, human rights activists and members of nongovernmental organizations are currently marking the 10th anniversary of the completion of the treaty that established the International Criminal Court. The court's creation was an extraordinary step in extending the reach of law to those responsible for the mass slaughter of civilians and the use of rape as a weapon of war.
The challenges judges need to rise to in trying war-crimes cases fairly and efficiently were evident at the opening of the trial of Charles Taylor, the former president of Liberia. But the significance of a trial of a former head of state associated with horrendous crimes shouldn't be obscured because the proceedings didn't open without a hitch.
As the transfer of Liberia's former president to face trial in The Hague remains stalled, the EU ministerial meeting this week with the Economic Community of West African States could not be more timely.
In the early hours of 29 March a Land-Rover with Nigerian diplomatic number plates arrived at a border post linking north-east Nigeria with Cameroon. It passed through immigration and was on its way through customs when officials realised that among the passengers was one of the world's most wanted war criminals: Charles Taylor, the former president of Liberia. For those who care about justice this was a historic moment, and one many believed could never come.
Bringing to justice those who commit atrocities has obvious appeal. It provides redress for victims and their families, punishes perpetrators, and deters others from replicating their crimes. But is the price too high? Critics argue that the threat of prosecution compels dictators to cling to power rather than step down, or that it encourages abusive combatants to fight on rather than sue for peace. Yet a decade of experience with international tribunals suggests these fears are overblown.
If Condoleezza Rice's testimony this week at her Senate confirmation hearing as secretary of state is an indicator of the Bush administration's plans for Africa, Africans and the human rights community should be worried.
During the 1990s, the international community took unprecedented steps to limit the impunity all too often associated with mass slaughter, forced dislocation of ethnic groups, torture, and rape as a weapon of war.
With Zimbabwe and Pakistan suspended from the Commonwealth's top table for their failure to undertake meaningful political reform, Robert Mugabe and Pervez Musharraf won't be there. But will the Prime Minister and other Commonwealth leaders also get tough with host nation Nigeria for its dismal human rights record?
Africa is becoming less safe for dictators and warlords. In recent years, quiet exile for former African despots and warlords has become less predictable.
The parallels between the current crisis in Guinea and the situation in Macedonia at the onset of the Kosovo refugee crisis in 1999 are striking. The international response to both situations could not be more different.
Diplomats, judges, lawyers, human rights activists and members of nongovernmental organizations are currently marking the 10th anniversary of the completion of the treaty that established the International Criminal Court. The court's creation was an extraordinary step in extending the reach of law to those responsible for the mass slaughter of civilians and the use of rape as a weapon of war.
The challenges judges need to rise to in trying war-crimes cases fairly and efficiently were evident at the opening of the trial of Charles Taylor, the former president of Liberia. But the significance of a trial of a former head of state associated with horrendous crimes shouldn't be obscured because the proceedings didn't open without a hitch.
As the transfer of Liberia's former president to face trial in The Hague remains stalled, the EU ministerial meeting this week with the Economic Community of West African States could not be more timely.
In the early hours of 29 March a Land-Rover with Nigerian diplomatic number plates arrived at a border post linking north-east Nigeria with Cameroon. It passed through immigration and was on its way through customs when officials realised that among the passengers was one of the world's most wanted war criminals: Charles Taylor, the former president of Liberia. For those who care about justice this was a historic moment, and one many believed could never come.
Bringing to justice those who commit atrocities has obvious appeal. It provides redress for victims and their families, punishes perpetrators, and deters others from replicating their crimes. But is the price too high? Critics argue that the threat of prosecution compels dictators to cling to power rather than step down, or that it encourages abusive combatants to fight on rather than sue for peace. Yet a decade of experience with international tribunals suggests these fears are overblown.
If Condoleezza Rice's testimony this week at her Senate confirmation hearing as secretary of state is an indicator of the Bush administration's plans for Africa, Africans and the human rights community should be worried.
During the 1990s, the international community took unprecedented steps to limit the impunity all too often associated with mass slaughter, forced dislocation of ethnic groups, torture, and rape as a weapon of war.
With Zimbabwe and Pakistan suspended from the Commonwealth's top table for their failure to undertake meaningful political reform, Robert Mugabe and Pervez Musharraf won't be there. But will the Prime Minister and other Commonwealth leaders also get tough with host nation Nigeria for its dismal human rights record?
Africa is becoming less safe for dictators and warlords. In recent years, quiet exile for former African despots and warlords has become less predictable.
The parallels between the current crisis in Guinea and the situation in Macedonia at the onset of the Kosovo refugee crisis in 1999 are striking. The international response to both situations could not be more different.