Re: The court process as a resolution

NB WARNING from AGF: this became much longer than intended.
Consider the D option now.

There must be something seriously wrong with Nikolai's argument, since for
the first time ever we [almost] agree! I had already marked down the
second - world state - paragraph of Peter's as both a logical non-
sequitur and factually  erroneus.Can it be that the Bingampton- Hopkins
axis,with its shift of the center to Hopkins, has taken Peter in? [I refer 
those with any memory to Al Bergesen's more than serious reservations 
about this world state argument, which as about as much merit as it has
impracticality]. But lets for now  leave aside the latter,that is Peter's
world state monopoly power conclusion {God save us,Brussles&Washington are
already trying to claim that this week, and i refer back to the 'we are
the world community ' argument of the NATO commander and  the 
Clinton administration], which conclusion simply [& fortunately] does not
follow from his premise.

What we can and maybe must rescue from this world state effort of
the Binghamton-Hopkins comrades in arms is the self interest requirement
for going along is better than opting out of a woeld court decision
that is bitter medicine. That is, it would be better to try[but how?] to
arrange that swallowing bitter medicine decisions is better than spitting it out
or refusing it altogether, instead of confiding in ever philosophical 
Nikola's reliance in sugar coating and/or everybody simply being
a good conscientious world citizen/state/firm/community/whatever.
So Nikolai and I still have a realistically small diaagreement about
idealism/realism [ i am an idealist optimist with several decades more
experience than Nikolai].

The problem regarding the world court of course as always is  , how do we
get from here to there? And the answer may be the old adage, you cant get
there from here. Yesterday I received a note about some serious problems
with the praxis, not to mention the institution, of the ad hoc courts
set up for Rwanda [in Arusha] and Bosnia [in the Hague]. Maybe the author
would like to revise that for posting here. A permanent institutionalized
World court of that kind would pose the same problems - literally MORE and
LESS. Without tryiung to analyze the whole mess here, I here refer to two
recent considerations only, one  a couple months ago, and one yesterday.
The fist one is the ICC=International Criminal Court recently agreed on
in Rome to make and hold those charged with violations of human rights
personally criminally responsible. [ The WOMP people have been pleading
for this for over two decades]. But as I already pointed out in my 
Big Brother War is Peace thing a few days ago, the United States did not
sign along with a handful of other states in good company, Israel,Iraq,
Iran, Libiya, China [and i omitted Russia which i think also wants to 
stay out].That list in itself is revealing! And of course the convention
still has to be ratified, and what to do to make it in the
sself-intrerwt of potential ratifiers to DO so? [It took the USA 40 years
to ratify the anti-genocide convention, which it now wished to invoke
in [ex] yuguslavia, but of course not  in guatemala where the US was
responsible for it as President Clinton just 'recognized' there, or Africa
or ...}. Beisdes that, in order to try to get the US on board of the ICC
to begin with, it was still born  so fa: Its mandate is as as court of
LAST resort only if all efforts to bring Mr. X to trial in his own or
otehr country/state fail.Ah but fail for how long? And ah, how about
bringing Senator Pinotchet into traffic court in Chile and prosecutiung
him for a parking violation, so that he does not have to appear before
the ICC? So until the ICC is strengthend, not to mention funded, and and,
realistically speaking the Law Lords in the UK even with their now
restricted judgment, have advanced the cause of bringing not only
Pinochet but also others, including Milosevic, to justice.

The second consideratin happend yesterday. CNN interviewed Arkan in
Belgrad because he had JUST[not ly!] been indicted befote the court in 
the Hague. Whose bright idea this was, i have not been told, but I can
guess! and I can alos guess why he was indictred only yesterday and not
several years ago when he allegedly commited the acts for which is only
nw being indicted! Revealingly Maelein Albright and other State Dept
spokespersoins have for the past few days been obliquely 'warning'
that those who commit or are responsible for atrocities in Kosovo
[which presumably does not include dropping bomb on people's heads  
there] will be held personally accountable. That would be a  GOOD thing
in 1066 and all that terms, especially if it were in a permanent UN ICC
criminal and other  court, and less good in a Security Council hastily
erected underfunded Ad Hoc for this occasion court. And still less good
if and when such indictments and court become - or are used as - the 
political instruments of the or [A = THE?] Big Brother power. For
lets just recall, whofor several years now  has opposed and prevented the
arrest and trial of those already indicted - and in importsant cases
also prevented the indictment itself - in the Bosnian war and the
Dayton 'agreement' that provides for such arrest and prosecution?
Simple one word answer: [President] Clinton. It has simply been  not
convenient for treasons of state of the USA to make this
international machinery of [partial] justice work. So suddenly
yesterday it became 'convenient' to go after the Number 3 man in Bosnia
[who happens to be FROM Kosovo and IN Belgrad], though I have heard no
recent mention of # 1 Mr. K and # 2 Gen.M [but I bet that we will as soon
as there is another armed flareup there as a direct result of the NATO
bombings, which as i also wrote threaten further to undermine the Dayton
agreement in Bosnia]. So how can we now avoid the 'suspicion' that
this criminal prosecution and court ALSO are, or become, or aare used as
[no more than?] convenient instruments of power by the [unnamed] powerful.
Dear Nikolai, where is the Justice?  Dear Peter, not in a good new world
state. The "good ol' one" we got is bad enough. And if you dont believe
it, you shoulda watched CNN's Larry King  last night interviewing Pat
Buchanon, a senator from Louisiana, and the Russian Ambassador to the UN. Far
It hard to tell which one, including Larry,  was the most frigthening.
That spectacle does not recommend either a world court or a world sate
[although the Russian did ask what about UN/International law and Larry
cut him off/changed the subject], and just about the only thing that seems
to recommend itself is collective ritual hara-kiri -- before the likes of
them divest us of even that choice.

gunder frank - with many apologies for going on and on, which was not my
original intention.

Thu, 1 Apr 1999, Nikolai S. Rozov wrote:

> Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 18:31:01 +0000
> From: "Nikolai S. Rozov" <rozov@nsu.ru>
> To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
> Subject: Re: The court process as a resolution
> 
> Dear Peter and All,
> i both agree and disagree
> 
> On 31 Mar 99  Peter Grimes <p34d3611@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> wrote:
> > 
> > 	I completely support an effective world court which could have
> > both real enforcement power and jurisdiction over matters of civil wars.
> > ...> 	But the failure of that initiative is only a symptom of a broader
> > problem: we cannot have a real court unless it has a monopoly over the use
> > of LEGITIMATE violence (Weber was right on this one), which requires the
> > prior formation of a truly global state.  Pending such a new global
> > empire, we will remain victims of and hostages to sectarian national
> > interests and efforts at hegemony.
> 
> a real court with real legal decisions is possible  before and 
> without monopolization of violence.  it is also possible in principle 
> to persuade conflicting sides to stop fighing and to be obedient to 
> the court decisions, not under the fear of violence by on the basis 
> of international status, honor, dignity, values and similar reasons
> 
> i also see not absolutely impossible that in this or some other 
> situation G7 as one side and Russia-China-India-Ukrain-Brazilia from 
> another as another can guarantee all possible support for promotion 
> any future decision of an international court if both sides 
> believe in its fairness. 
> 
> the real cricial problem will emerge AFTER a court  decision, which 
> probably would be inappropriate to both opponents of a conflict and 
> guarantee- sides would have no sufficient power to enforce the 
> decision. There it would be a problem, a kew civilizational problem 
> to be solved.
> 
> I don't think that the only solution can be a Global State with 
> monopoly of power, as you Peter suggest. Three years ago i have 
> argued in wsn that the idea of global state is extremely dangeorous 
> (leave aside its impossiblility), and must be substituted by the idea 
> of Global Legal Order. This Order composed of solidary strenth of 
> current world power partner centers (if you like - oligarchs) would 
> serve as a source of the Weber's monopoly of legal violence that 
> Peter rightly appeals to.
> 
> my point is that without making attempts like in this case of Kossovo 
> (when really there are still NO sufficient factors for 
> transformation) humanity certainly NEVER will come to the next 
> civilizational stage with international legal order, which means new 
> and new uncontrolled bloody conflicts and probably even devastating 
> wars in the coming century and further - just in parallel with 
> deterioration of planet resources and with global population 
> pressing.
> 
> comments?
> 
> Nikolai Rozov
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                   ANDRE GUNDER FRANK
250 Kensington Ave - Apt 608     Tel: 1-514-933 2539    
Westmount/Montreal PQ/QC         Fax: 1-514-933 6445 or 1478
Canada H3Z 2G8              e-mail:agfrank@chass.utoronto.ca 

My Home Page is at:       http://www.whc.neu.edu/gunder.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~