Well, he’s not exactly the new prosecutor yet, as I predicted some weeks back, but he is getting closer to an institution that fits better his “world approach” to justice. Garzon has asked to be transferred to the ICC for seven months as a “consultant” for Prosecutor Ocampo. Not only is it not necessarily a good idea for the ICC to hire such a polarizing figure, but more importantly, should the ICC really be hiring someone who is under 3 investigations for judicial misconduct in his home country? The charges might seem “political”, but to the last of my knowledge, Spain is a European democracy (with some problems, but still, don’t we all have them?), not some third world dictatorship. I’m a little puzzled at how easily the proceedings are being dismissed as “merely” political. It is the same judicial system that allowed Garzon to operate for so many years on his progressive approach to universal jurisdiction. Or maybe i’m just naive… In any case, I really don’t think it looks good for the ICC to take sides on this one (which it will clearly be doing, even indirectly, by letting Garzon work for it).
Why Spreading the Jam?
Because Culture is like Jam, the less you have, the more you spread...-
-
Recent Posts
- A comment on the critical reactions to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon Hariri Judgment
- Shooting the Messenger? A response to Kip Hale’s call for the ICC community to engage in self-examination
- ICC PTC authorises investigation in Bangladesh/Myanmar: some thoughts
- ICC OTP requests authorisation to open an investigation into the Myanmar situation: three comments
- Q&A regarding the “Q&A REGARDING APPEALS CHAMBER’S 6 MAY 2019 JUDGMENT IN THE JORDAN REFERRAL RE AL-BASHIR APPEAL”
Archives
- August 2020 (1)
- June 2020 (1)
- November 2019 (1)
- July 2019 (1)
- May 2019 (4)
- April 2019 (3)
- March 2019 (1)
- February 2019 (2)
- September 2018 (3)
- November 2017 (6)
- October 2017 (1)
- September 2017 (1)
- July 2017 (1)
- December 2016 (1)
- November 2016 (1)
- October 2016 (2)
- April 2016 (1)
- March 2016 (2)
- December 2015 (1)
- July 2015 (1)
- June 2015 (2)
- March 2015 (2)
- February 2015 (2)
- January 2015 (3)
- December 2014 (5)
- November 2014 (2)
- October 2014 (1)
- September 2014 (2)
- July 2014 (3)
- May 2014 (2)
- April 2014 (1)
- March 2014 (7)
- February 2014 (1)
- January 2014 (3)
- November 2013 (1)
- October 2013 (9)
- September 2013 (5)
- August 2013 (4)
- June 2013 (3)
- May 2013 (1)
- March 2013 (1)
- December 2012 (1)
- July 2012 (4)
- June 2012 (1)
- March 2012 (3)
- December 2011 (3)
- September 2011 (1)
- August 2011 (1)
- June 2011 (1)
- May 2011 (7)
- April 2011 (4)
- March 2011 (6)
- February 2011 (3)
- January 2011 (2)
- December 2010 (2)
- November 2010 (3)
- October 2010 (3)
- July 2010 (13)
- June 2010 (6)
- May 2010 (8)
- April 2010 (4)
- March 2010 (4)
- February 2010 (3)
- January 2010 (2)
- December 2009 (1)
- November 2009 (2)
- September 2009 (2)
- August 2009 (1)
- April 2009 (2)
Blogroll
Spreading the Jam 
I am puzzled by this bit of your entry:"The charges might seem "political", but to the last of my knowledge, Spain is a European democracy (with some problems, but still, don't we all have them?), not some third world dictatorship."Does this mean that judicial proceedings in non-European countries deserve a presumption of bias or partiality? What difference does it make that Spain is a European country? Does that mean that any charges of bias or lack of impartiality when it comes to a European country should be summarily dismissed "because it is a European democracy"?That Spain is a European democracy is plainly irrelevant.
Guillermo, you seem to have a notably Manichean way of reading my post…I did not say that non-European countries deserve a presumption of bias or partiality. That is not the topic of my post. I was making more of a factual statement than creating a theoretical category. The FACT is that European democracies are much less open to criticism than some other countries. But I take your point, the FACT that Spain is European is indeed irrelevant, but the FACT that it is a democracy certainly is when you're going to comment on/assess its judicial system.Neither did I say that any charge of bias or lack of impartiality should be "summarily" dismissed because Spain is a European democracy. All I said was that I was surprised at how little consideration is given to the Spanish system, given that it is a democracy, and how every commentator is so easily buying into the "it's all political" theory, without one second considering that there might actually be a legal foundation for the proceedings…Of course that the fact that Spain is a democracy is PLAINLY relevant. Of course, you can take the anti-western moral equivalence approach, but at the end of the day, where would you prefer to be tried? Spain or North Korea/Iran/Sudan/China etc…?