A Day at Chautauqua: Justice for a Better World Commentary
A Day at Chautauqua: Justice for a Better World
Edited by: Jeremiah Lee

JURIST Contributing Editor David Crane of Syracuse University College of Law, former Chief Prosecutor for the UN Special Court for Sierra Leone, says that the recent meeting at Chautauqua of nine of the twelve living international prosecutors, spanning the Nuremberg Trials to the International Criminal Court, produced a landmark call for governments to back the international criminal courts with the political will and support necessary for them to uphold the rule of law….


The delightful weather and the pristine setting belied the importance of the moment. At the century-old Chautauqua Institution in upstate New York, nine of the 12 living international prosecutors, from Nuremberg to the International Criminal Court, met several weeks ago to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Hague Rules of 1907, the cornerstone to the laws of armed conflict that ensure that the law is followed, even in combat.

The first annual International Humanitarian Law Dialogs considered the impact of those rules of war in this age of international terror, as well as discuss their relevance in the 21st century. At the end of this historic day, the prosecutors publicly signed the First Chautauqua Declaration [PP slides], calling upon the international community to stop dithering over the relevance and significance of enforcing the mandate of various international tribunals, courts, and chambers and to acknowledge that they must conform their conduct to the law. The prosecutors demanded that those indicted by these internationally created justice mechanisms be handed over for a fair trial. State responsibility remains one of the keys to success for modern international criminal law.

These prosecutors – myself from the Special Court for Sierra Leone; Whitney Harris and Henry King of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg; Sir Desmond DeSilva and Stephen Rapp also of the Special Court for Sierra Leone; Hassan Jallow of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda; David Tolbert of the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia; Luis Moreno-Occampo of the International Criminal Court; and Robert Petit of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia – called for the handing over of Radovan Karadic, Ratko Miladic, Joseph Kony, Ahmad Harun, and Felician Kabuga; and all others sought by the tribunals, so that justice can be had for the victims of the many atrocities committed throughout the world totaling the destruction of over 12 million human beings in the past 60 years.

That day, August 29, 2007, was significant, historic, and moving as the prosecutors openly discussed the challenges that we met daily in facing down the beast of impunity. Whitney Harris, 95 years old, invoked the spirit of Justice Robert H. Jackson, the American Chief of Counsel at Nuremberg, as did his colleague Henry King who also pounded the table calling for a renewal of the spirit of the Nuremberg Principles. Sir Desmond DeSilva eloquently stated: “Let the word go out to warlords and leaders all over the world. However powerful, however mighty, however feared you may be the law is above you. The law will bring you down.” I stated simply that the law is fair, that no one is above the law, and the rule of law is more powerful than the rule of the gun.

In a time of fear, uncertainty, and even ill-will, this new cold war, is an ideological struggle that will most likely last for decades. It will be the rule of law that will allow civilized peoples around the world to triumph over tyranny, as the forces of freedom did in the insane struggle with the former Soviet Union and world communism.

It must be stressed that those who struggle against this new type of fascism hold the ultimate ace of spades in this strange poker game that mankind finds itself dealt into – that ace is freedom. Yet freedom can only flourish under the rule of law. If we give up the rule of law, we will let go of that all important card, which if dealt away may never be returned.

All peoples want to be free from fear, free from want, free to express themselves, and free to worship as they feel appropriate. These four freedoms invoked by President Franklin D. Roosevelt beat the Soviets in the last Cold War. This universal desire for freedom under law can also face down the Islamo-fascists in this current struggle. International terrorists cannot defeat this desire for freedom and they know it, just as the Soviets realized in the mid to late 1980s.

The Chautauqua Declaration called upon the world to remember the stirring words of Justice Robert Jackson: “We are able to do away with domestic tyranny and violence and aggression by those in power against the rights of their own people only when we make all men answerable to the law.” These stirring words are as relevant and important today as they were over 60 years ago. The prosecutors and the tribunals they work in are only as effective as the political will and support the world community gives to them. In law, half measures only soften the important input that truth and justice can achieve in bringing a sustainable piece in a post conflict setting.

The 20th century – the world’s bloodiest century, where over 115 million human beings died at the hands of their own governments – cannot be repeated in this new century. Mankind is better than this because of the rule of law and the slow, but steady advancement of international criminal law as it faces down atrocity, aggression, and inhumanity.

As Henry King of Nuremberg forcefully stated: “What is needed now is a revival of the spirit of Nuremberg. A better more peaceful world based on justice is within our grasp. So, let idealism and vision be the order of the day. We can indeed achieve a better world, if we will it to be our future.”

David M. Crane is a professor at Syracuse University College of Law, and former founding Chief Prosecutor for the UN Special Court for Sierra Leone (2002-2005).


——–

Opinions expressed in JURIST Commentary are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST's editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.