Read on Twitter
This post is getting a lot of love on Twitter so I certainly don't need to hype it up. I will say this, though: I think William Schabas makes a very important point and I hope the Selection and Experts committees are following this symposium. But... 1/ https://twitter.com/pilabuda/status/1249301076370763779
(And here it comes) But having studied prosecutorial policy for the past 7 years (check out my forthcoming book), I am struck by two things abt Goldstone and Arbour being 'brilliant' prosecutors. Schabas is channeling a view that I think is now quite common but... 2/
1 of 3 case studies in my book is the ICTR in Rwanda. Both Goldstone and Arbour performed poorly as ICTR prosecutors and this is uncontroversial. When Goldstone and Arbour are lauded as prosecutors, invariably people mean the ICTY, the 'more important' ad hoc tribunal. 3/
Let's be clear, this reflects a major asymmetry in how the 'international community' treated/treats the Yugoslav conflict and the Rwandan genocide. It is not just Goldstone or Arbour choosing to prioritize the ICTY. But it bears emphasizing because Goldstone in particular... 4/
paid almost no attention to Rwanda. It was just not 'important' at that time. Some will say prioritizing the ICTY speaks to G and A 'prosecutorial acumen'. Sure, that's a discussion worth having, but usually we just forget the ICTR as if it didn't exist. 5/
The more important point to make (and this goes for Jackson being a 'brilliant' prosecutor) is that hindsight is always 20/20. I have spent the last 7 years reading contemporaneous documents from the 1990s about the ICTR and ICTY and I think many people... 6/
Many people who lived through the 1990s, now called the 'halcyon days' of international criminal justice, would be surprised to re-read the virulent critiques of the ICTY/ICTR, including Goldstone and Arbour. Their tenures were rocky, to put it mildly. 7/
I have a review essay in the pipeline that re-assesses the performance of the ICTR 25 years after the genocide. I note how assessments of the ad hocs have drastically changed. In 2000s they were criticized for everything th ICC is now criticized for, yet now they are a 'model' 8/
What I mean by all this is that I get the sense there is a whiff of what historians call anachronism when we celebrate Arbour and Goldstone, not to mention Jackson. Schabas lived through the 1990s and I think he makes a very important point about A and G's backgrounds 9/
I share my own thoughts about this not to question that point, but in the spirit of dialogue, on prosecutorial performance more generally. Read @djag2's post about Ocampo and Bensouda here https://justiceinconflict.org/2020/04/11/how-do-we-assess-the-performance-of-the-iccs-first-prosecutors/ /10
Personally, the longer I study the ICC's track record in Africa (I am familiar with several case studies) the more careful I am in assessing Ocampo or Bensouda. If nothing else, I get the sense we will be interpreting the ICC's early history very differently in 15 years 11/
I should clarify that I don't disagree with anything @djag2 wrote (in case the last tweet is read that way). It's a more general point about how performance assessment changes over time, how historical time flattens what seemed like salient critiques, etc. 12/
Anyway, I'm grateful for @WilliamSchabas1's post since it triggers what is in my view an important discussion about performance generally. And of course I hope the selection committee is paying attention :) /end
Oh and I should just add that I am curious if other people feel my questions about Goldstone and Arbour's solid evaluations are misplaced. Like I said, I didn't live through the 1990s -- I am reconstructing from the archival record. A lot of nuance is lost that way - thoughts?
Right on point, James Goldston has some thoughts on 'lessons from the past' https://justiceinconflict.org/2020/04/12/choosing-the-next-icc-prosecutor-lessons-from-the-past/
Note how Goldstone's performance = ICTY. Maybe this is just how these things work. You have to prioritize, you will be remembered for 1, maybe 2 things. No prosecutor can get it all right. I'll have more to say about this in my own post for this symposium
