Who Gets to Define Justice?

by Neha Erasmus

category: Humanitarian Relief

Published May 29, 2009 @ 09:24AM PT

This is the third  and final part of a short series looking at some of the more controversial issues facing humanitarian advocacy.

Neha Erasmus - who spent a number of years working for NGOs in Sudan, and now works for an advocacy and research institute in London - suggested the questions.  For each topic, Neha wrote first, I responded, and then she had the last word.

Question - Does the fact that we are unable (or unwilling) to speak out about genocide or war crimes everywhere invalidate our efforts to address such actions in any one place?  Or, put another way, does our inability or unwillingness to speak out about American or British or Israeli (or Chinese or Indian or Russian, etc etc.) war crimes mean that we cannot speak out about Darfur?

Neha - I don’t think the question is about validation, or the "right to speak out", but about what will work best and that looks to what the means are. Indian thinking emphasizes that means are not important, they are everything. Leadership by example will work every time, whereas we cannot count on success if we do not practice what we preach.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is a perfect example. It is not the ICC that is problematic or impartial, but the entire international system which does not allow space for equitably distributed justice. The question of whether the [Bashir indictment] decision was right or not is debatable, but what has happened as a consequence is not. Bashir has had a basis to refute the ICC’s legitimacy and rally support and many African states (who form nearly one third of the signatories to the Rome Statute) have sided with him on this. Whatever the reasons, this is a sad loss.

Michael - But we work with what we have – do we jettison the entire international justice system – or the entire international system, however defined – because it is not perfect, or perfectible? Do we sacrifice the good for the perfect? Also, what does “equitably distributed justice” actually mean? What does it look like, both in theory and practice? Especially keeping in mind that the National Congress Party version of justice doesn’t seem particularly equitable or just.

Neha - This is such a tough question. I think "working towards" perfection or "truth" is the way forward. I did a quick google on "reform veto power" (the main reason why America can never be held accountable for Iraq) and most of what came up was the demand for more veto power from other players. There doesn’t seem to have been any calls for the removal of all veto powers, which would definitely promote a more equitable and democratic international system. Where is international (or Western) pressure for this?

Equitably distributed justice is a phrase I made up (like many things I say). I think it means that if we are going to have an international system of justice (which I don’t necessarily subscribe to) it should distribute the justice in equal proportion to wrongdoing, unlimited by who the players are. That way, justice can never be dismissed as unjust. Again, "working towards’" is the only answer I have on this one.

[Photo from Rob Crilly]