International Criminal Court: Policy, Status and Overview

International Criminal Court: Policy, Status and Overview
Editor: Harry P Milton
Nova Science Publishers Inc, 2009

My first book review for Solicitors Journal

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has been in operation since 2003 as the first permanent world court to prosecute individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. It is a curious institution, occupying a nervous space between state sovereignty and individual responsibility. It claims independence from state parties but also relies on them for cooperation in its investigations, the execution of its arrest warrants and, ultimately, the enforcement of its decisions.

Its relationship with the US is a fascinating ongoing battle of values, between the insistence on sovereignty and the aspiration towards international justice. America’s vehement oppression to the ICC is a surprising stance for the dominant democratic power, and the relationship has been the focal point for an energetic movement of NGOs around the world.

This is not a book which discusses these things. Harry P Milton has put together three essays by the American Congressional Research Service, and promised an overview of the status of the ICC. They deliver this and nothing more.

Community Interest Companies: encouraging community projects

My first article for lawthink

The idea of limited liability is a fundamental feature of a modern economy. Incorporating a limited company allows people with good ideas to create a separate entity for their business. This ensures that the individuals behind the company will not be held personally responsible for any debts or legal obligations owed by the business. As a result, people are able to take risks, and be ambitious.

This company law principle has been an instrumental building block to the growth of the private sector. In the UK, an entrepreneur can start a new company simply by submitting three forms to Companies House and paying a £20 fee. Our private sector is stronger, more diverse and more creative as a result.

There is no reason why the same arguments do not extend to communities and the third sector. Individuals with good ideas for how to help their community need to be able to take risks and benefit from protection. Yet, charities are notoriously difficult to set up. Firstly, the process of registering with the Charity Commission can be incredibly time-consuming. Next, the charity must navigate around stringent restrictions on trading and political activities throughout its life. Finally, in most circumstances, charities do not allow for board members to be paid. These problems constitute important deterrents for small enterprises.

This is why Community Interest Companies (CICs) were so important. In 2005, the UK made available a new corporate form which is designed for social enterprises that do not have charity status. Fundamentally CICs afford social entrepreneurs with the same protections as a normal company: members are afforded limited liability and directors can be remunerated (unlike a charity). Just as someone with a good idea for how to make money can easily set up a company, someone with a good idea for how to help his community should be able to set up a CIC. When a friend recently asked me to help incorporate his social enterprise, I expected it to be easy.

Did Kosovo open up Pandora’s Box?

Did Kosovo open up Pandora’s Box?
My editorial in New Statesman, 09/2008

In February 2008, Kosovo’s parliament unilaterally declared itself independent from Serbia. Tens of thousands crowded the streets of Pristina against a backdrop of fireworks and firecrackers.

These celebrations were not repeated in the Kremlin. Even as Western states moved to support Kosovo, Russia's President Vladimir Putin branded the declaration “immoral and illegal”.

Then war erupted in the Caucasus and two tiny Georgian enclaves, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, were recognised as independent by Russia and Nicaragua. It was the West's turn to fume.

Some commentators have been quick to conclude a new Cold War is inevitable. Elsewhere there has been growing alarm that the fireworks in Kosovo - and now the Caucasus - will lead to new waves of unilateral declarations of independence and self-determination.

The panic is ill-founded for a number of reasons. For one thing, secessionism is not new. Since 1990, almost 30 new states have been created, mostly following the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the former Yugoslavia.

Indeed, since 1945, the United Nations has grown from 51 members to 192 today as independence movements took on life even as colonial empires disintegrated. Naturally, state boundaries change as geopolitics and power balances evolve.

For a secessionist movement to be recognised by other states is quite different to it be represented in diplomatic relations and become an active player in international processes. Taiwan, enjoying diplomatic relations with 23 states, cannot be said to be an active party in the international community until it gains representation at the United Nations and in its agencies. Until Kosovo, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia gain this representation, they remain in state limbo.

Thirdly, Kosovo, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia are very different from the majority of secessionist territories in the world. Kosovo was under UN authority for nearly a decade prior to its independence, the statement of which emphasised that Kosovo was a “special case” after the volatile breakup of Yugoslavia. Both South Ossetia and Abkhazia have operated as functional de facto governments since the early 1990s, with a stable, independent government structure and a functional judiciary.

And indeed, secessionism is little more than a blanket term for a diverse grouping of political movements around the world. The Kurds, with 30 million dispersed across Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria, hardly face the same challenges as the South Ossetians, numbering 70,000. Secessionist movements in South Tyrol, Flanders, and Scotland may all operate within large, western European, well-established political administrations, but their histories and political situations stand in stark contrast to one another.

Even within states, secessionist movements can differ enormously. Indonesia has seen two very different major movements – East Timour was granted independence in 1999 whilst separatist calls in Aceh have been largely muted as the region enjoys increasing internal autonomy. The election of the Kuomintang Party in Taiwan has seen a political cross-Strait truce since March 2008, whilst pre-Olympic crackdowns in Western China saw demonstrations and increasing support for autonomy amongst Tibetan and Uyghur groups.