Deterrent or distraction?
The UN's point man on Sudan briefed the Security Council in late March and his report contained an interesting nugget: attacks by the Uganda-based Lord's Resistance Army in southern Sudan have apparently increased since the International Criminal Court issued indictments for its leaders. Those skeptical of the ICC will see this as further evidence that the supposed ...
The UN's point man on Sudan briefed the Security Council in late March and his report contained an interesting nugget: attacks by the Uganda-based Lord's Resistance Army in southern Sudan have apparently increased since the International Criminal Court issued indictments for its leaders. Those skeptical of the ICC will see this as further evidence that the supposed deterrent effect of international justice is illusory. Helena Cobban makes this argument in a recent Think Again piece for FP (subscription required):
The UN's point man on Sudan briefed the Security Council in late March and his report contained an interesting nugget: attacks by the Uganda-based Lord's Resistance Army in southern Sudan have apparently increased since the International Criminal Court issued indictments for its leaders. Those skeptical of the ICC will see this as further evidence that the supposed deterrent effect of international justice is illusory. Helena Cobban makes this argument in a recent Think Again piece for FP (subscription required):
But there is important evidence against the proposition that war crimes prosecutions deter atrocities. Consider Milosevic. He was warned explicitly on several occasions about the threat of prosecution. He had witnessed the ICTY indict the leader and top general of the Bosnian Serbs, and he’d seen NATO troops arrest war criminals in Bosnia. Still, he decided to proceed with abuses in the restive province of Kosovo and, ultimately, the ethnic cleansing of most of its Kosovar Albanian inhabitants in 1998. In the face of such examples, the blithe claims of activists that war crimes prosecutions deter atrocities should be treated skeptically, at best.
I am not quite as skeptical as Cobban (I'm sure certain leaders in certain situations see international prosecution as a threat). I do, however, see the push for prosecutions in places like Sudan to be a monumental distraction from the far more pressing task of assembling a capable intervention force. Seeing dozens of smart, energetic, well-meaning activists devote their life force to prosecuction rather than prevention is almost tragic. The activists might respond that the efforts are complementary; I'm not convinced. Attention spans, financial resources, op-ed real estate, and policymaker time are all scarce. Worse, issuing indictments and launching investigations creates a soothing international hum that many will mistake for the sound of effective action.
David Bosco is a professor at Indiana University’s Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies. He is the author of The Poseidon Project: The Struggle to Govern the World’s Oceans. Twitter: @multilateralist
More from Foreign Policy
Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.
The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.
Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.
How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
