The "poisoned chalice" of international justice

While the United States has, since its founding, prided itself on the idea of justice for all, those principles have seldom found expression in the international realm, until relatively recently.

Former Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, who would prosecute crimes at Nuremberg, would lay out the case for equal international justice, when he said in his opening statement “that the record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well.”

Given this, the idea that the US would ever participate in any kind of international tribunal has always seemed remote. Yet ten years ago, the International Criminal Court would come to be. And for all its struggles and limitations, it has started to gain its footing. American University Professor David Bosco, takes us through the history in Rough Justice: The International Criminal Court in a World of Power Politics.

My conversation with David Bosco:

Is the Security Council Relevant?

For over 60 years the Untied Nations has tried to play to role in the peace and security of the world. The UN Security Council and its five permanent members (the US, Great Britain, France, Russia, and China) have been central to that effort. From the Berlin Airlift to the Iraq War, from nuclear proliferation to the global war on terrorism, to genocide in Africa, the council has had some successes and many failures. But even amidst its failures, it's provide a kind of pressure valve for the five powers. David Bosco, in his new book Five to Rule Them All: The UN Security Council and the Making of the Modern World sheds light on the competing visions of what the council is supposed to do vs. what it has actually accomplished and if, in fact, it has any relevance in a globalized 21st Century world.

My conversation with David Bosco.