LAW PUNDIT Friday, December 31, 2004 12/31/2004 04:46:00 PM [Home]
Is all Justice simply "Local" ? - The International Court of Justice
Prof. Eric A. Posner has a Dec. 30, 2004 NY Times Op-Ed entitled All Justice, Too, Is Local, dealing with the status of the International Court of Justice in The Hague.
Posner outlines the decline of the International Court over the years, explaining that decline with a scathing commentary on judges:
"Why have countries abandoned the court? The most plausible answer is that they do not trust the judges to rule impartially, but expect them to vote the interests of the states of which they are citizens. Statistics bear out this conjecture. When their home countries are parties to litigation, judges vote in favor of them about 90 percent of the time. When their states are not parties, judges tend to vote for states that are more like their home states. Judges from wealthy states tend to vote in favor of wealthy states, and judges from poor states tend to vote in favor of poor states. In addition, judges from democracies appear to favor democracies; judges from authoritarian states appear to favor authoritarian states. This is not to say that the judges pay no attention to the law. But there is no question that politics matter."
It can probably be presumed that judges around the world are no better, defending the vested political interests of their persons and their personal "localities".
What does this tell us about the rule of law? Whose rule - in any particular country or place - is it?
Anyone who doubts that local "good old boys" run the world just about everywhere has just has not been around this world long enough.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 12/31/2004 04:46:00 PM
Is all Justice simply "Local" ? - The International Court of Justice
Prof. Eric A. Posner has a Dec. 30, 2004 NY Times Op-Ed entitled All Justice, Too, Is Local, dealing with the status of the International Court of Justice in The Hague.
Posner outlines the decline of the International Court over the years, explaining that decline with a scathing commentary on judges:
"Why have countries abandoned the court? The most plausible answer is that they do not trust the judges to rule impartially, but expect them to vote the interests of the states of which they are citizens. Statistics bear out this conjecture. When their home countries are parties to litigation, judges vote in favor of them about 90 percent of the time. When their states are not parties, judges tend to vote for states that are more like their home states. Judges from wealthy states tend to vote in favor of wealthy states, and judges from poor states tend to vote in favor of poor states. In addition, judges from democracies appear to favor democracies; judges from authoritarian states appear to favor authoritarian states. This is not to say that the judges pay no attention to the law. But there is no question that politics matter."
It can probably be presumed that judges around the world are no better, defending the vested political interests of their persons and their personal "localities".
What does this tell us about the rule of law? Whose rule - in any particular country or place - is it?
Anyone who doubts that local "good old boys" run the world just about everywhere has just has not been around this world long enough.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 12/31/2004 04:46:00 PM
......Creative Commons License
