Efficiency Lecture Question
In what ways could the ICC’s bureaucracy, finances, judicial election process, and relationship with the States Parties be reformed to increase its efficiency as an instrument for international justice?
Comment on the Efficiency Lecture Question: “In what ways could the ICC’s bureaucracy, finances, judicial election process, and relationship with the States Parties be reformed to increase its efficiency as an instrument for international justice?”
I am a HUGE proponent for the court becoming more efficient. I think in order for any state to take the institution seriously, the ICC must start delivering quicker and more cost effective results. Throughout the quarter we have debated the difficulty in determining how to measure the effectiveness of the court. Should it be through geographical reach of the cases? Or perhaps the number of victims for which it advocates? A simple definition would be in the number of cases it tries. More complex would be in the number of convictions. Perhaps most difficult would be to evaluate the court by the quality of the cases. Who would even be capable of judging such a metric? The victims? The lawyers?
In class, we all agreed that any metric examined independently would have very severe flaws. While true, I still believe it is up to the court to outline some type of benchmarks for its performance and publicize these goals. Even if the ICC does not reach its targets, at the very least it will be able to say it has a clear vision for its future and a plan to become more effective. Currently, everyone seems to have difficulty defining the criteria by which the ICC should be judged, but there is a general consensus that under any standards the court is underperforming.
M. Cherif Bassiouni
Professor of Law
Comment on the Efficiency Lecture Question: “In what ways could the ICC’s bureaucracy, finances, judicial election process, and relationship with the States Parties be reformed to increase its efficiency as an instrument for international justice?”
I am a HUGE proponent for the court becoming more efficient. I think in order for any state to take the institution seriously, the ICC must start delivering quicker and more cost effective results. Throughout the quarter we have debated the difficulty in determining how to measure the effectiveness of the court. Should it be through geographical reach of the cases? Or perhaps the number of victims for which it advocates? A simple definition would be in the number of cases it tries. More complex would be in the number of convictions. Perhaps most difficult would be to evaluate the court by the quality of the cases. Who would even be capable of judging such a metric? The victims? The lawyers?
In class, we all agreed that any metric examined independently would have very severe flaws. While true, I still believe it is up to the court to outline some type of benchmarks for its performance and publicize these goals. Even if the ICC does not reach its targets, at the very least it will be able to say it has a clear vision for its future and a plan to become more effective. Currently, everyone seems to have difficulty defining the criteria by which the ICC should be judged, but there is a general consensus that under any standards the court is underperforming.