BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Center for International and Regional Studies - ECPv6.15.15//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for Center for International and Regional Studies
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:Europe/Moscow
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0300
TZOFFSETTO:+0300
TZNAME:MSK
DTSTART:20170101T000000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20180222T080000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20180222T170000
DTSTAMP:20260404T181008
CREATED:20181009T122828Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240314T093148Z
UID:10001377-1519286400-1519318800@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:Science and Scientific Production in the Middle East Roundtable
DESCRIPTION:In February\, 2018\, CIRS convened a one-day roundtable meeting to bring together scholars\, scientists\, experts\, and business practitioners with extensive experience on science and scientific production in the Middle East. Over the course of a day the participants engaged in a vibrant and open conversation on the opportunities and constraints of conducting scientific research in the region. \n\nAmong other things\, participants in the roundtable explored the influence of culture\, coherence\, continuity\, and consensus on the development of SDI; and transnational collaborations and networks\, along with local patronage which funds such relationships\, which enable world-class scientific research\, even in areas that don’t promise immediate financial return. The participants also discussed the need to encourage scientific indigeneity and internationalization of Middle Eastern scientific production. Moreover\, the participants highlighted the relationship between Islam and science\, which has been one of the main issues in contemporary intellectual discourses in the Muslim world\, particularly in the Middle East; and the impact of the Arab uprisings on science and scientific advancement. Finally\, the participants concluded the roundtable discussions by focusing on the impact of sanction regimes on scientists and scientific production in the Middle East with a particular focus on Iran. \n\nKey gaps in the literature on science and scientific production in the Middle East that emerged out of the discussions were: \n\nStructural and bureaucratic limitations to the development of SDI in the Middle East.  Self-censorship in disseminating sensitive research findings to the Middle East’s general public. The gap between society and the scientific community\, and access to foreign technology\, scientific discovery\, research\, etc. The role scientific networks and collaborations play in exchange of ideas and technological transfer between Middle Eastern countries and other parts of the world.  Networks and transnational collaborations’ contribution to building local capacity\, and continuity and sustainability of scientific research within an individual country.Sanction regimes a blessing or a curse? Although sanctions restrict external funding for research and equipping labs\, they can contribute to scientific indigeneity. The issue of capturing transnational collaborations between local and foreign research institutions.\n\nIt is worth mentioning that CIRS will launch a research initiative that addresses some of these gaps\, among others\, in the near future. \n\nFor the roundtable agenda\, click here.For the roundtable participants\, click here.For the research initiative\, click here.\n\nArticle by Islam Hassan\, Research Analyst at CIRS
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/science-and-scientific-production-middle-east-roundtable/
CATEGORIES:Focused Discussions,Race & Society,Regional Studies
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2018/10/events_127803_49646_1539088108-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20180228T124500
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20180228T134500
DTSTAMP:20260404T181008
CREATED:20180326T075028Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240314T093134Z
UID:10001360-1519821900-1519825500@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:Is the International Criminal Court a Colonial Institution?
DESCRIPTION:The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established in 1998 to ensure that war crimes and crimes against humanity do not go unpunished. Although governments usually have capable systems to enforce laws\, when it comes to mass atrocities\, they often lack the framework to deal with crimes of such proportions. Since its inception\, the ICC has been criticized for being a colonial institution\, one perpetuating the “powerful versus the powerless” paradigm. On February 28\, 2018\, the Center for International and Regional Studies hosted the talk\, “Is the International Criminal Court a Colonial Institution?” presented by Mia Swart\, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Doha Center and research director at the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) in South Africa. In addition to raising the presentation question\, she also offered suggestions for reforms of the ICC. \n\nSwart provided some background on the ICC and its relationship to the United Nations Security Council\, which has played an important role in international criminal justice\, such as by establishing ad hoc tribunals in the aftermath of large-scale crimes\, like with the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda in the 1990s. These organizations were the predecessors to the ICC and led to its establishment. Unlike these tribunals\, however\, the ICC is based on the Rome Statute\, the treaty that established the ICC’s jurisdiction and functions. States voluntarily become party to the statute by ratifying it and\, as of 2017\, 123 states are members.  \n\nSwart argued that\, “it is uncontroversial that international law has been shaped by colonialism and imperialism\,” as it is rooted in the Westphalian system that was devised by the European States. And\, the idea of certain states having all the power “is inextricably bound-up with international law as a discipline.” She believes that international law cannot be conceived without its colonial roots. The paternalistic idea of the UN or Western states caring for other nations is still given a lot of importance today\, she said\, and “at the center of this debate is the ICC’s nearly exclusive focus on African countries until very\, very recently.”  \n\nThis matter of whether the ICC is colonial is of particular interest for Swart\, as a South African. And the issue has been a “burning issue nationally\,” as South Africans are deeply concerned over how many of the institutions within their country are deeply colonial\, she said. Additionally\, when Sudanese President Omar Al Bashir arrived in Johannesburg in 2015 to attend an African Union summit\, it triggered an enormous debate over colonialism in South Africa. Subsequently\, the South African government attempted to withdraw from the ICC\, and the African Union continues to support a mass withdrawal by its members. \n\nAl-Bashir had been charged by the ICC with crimes against humanity and genocide in Darfur in 2009\, and it was the obligation of South Africa\, as a member of the ICC\, to have him arrested upon entering the country. That did not happen. The expectation of the ICC was that member states were obliged to arrest Al-Bashir if he stepped foot in their countries. What is notable about this situation is that Sudan is not a state party of the ICC. In fact\, Al Bashir had travelled to thirteen member-countries with a fair amount of immunity and without being arrested.  \n\nSwart said immunity and impunity for sitting heads of state is an international hot topic. “My view is that the Rome Statute trumps traditional rules of immunity and if you signed that statute then you are obliged to operate and arrest.” However\, she said\, it was simply inconceivable that South African President Zuma would arrest Al-Bashir because of long-standing diplomatic relations between the two countries. During this incident\, there was a lot of opportunistic use of the term colonialist\, she said. Claims were made that Al-Bashir should not be arrested because the ICC is colonial\, whereas “what was really going on was friends protecting friends.” Certain governments just refused to break diplomatic ties even if they knew that international crimes were committed\, she said.  \n\nThis was the context that really created a lot of the debate around whether the ICC is neocolonialist\, Swart said. She clarified that using the term colonial really means neocolonial. That the word colonial does not mean literally invading and taking over other countries; rather it’s a continuation of economic and political control\, and is equally damaging. Especially\, she said\, “China these days is a major neocolonialist on the African continent\, and the United States\, certainly.”  \n\nSwart believes the ICC is capable of evolving and becoming more understanding of global diversity\, and she noted that international law can also be counter-imperialistic. International law both reinforces the idea of colonialism and it also talks about liberation\, which is “the unstable nature of the international law\,” she said. However\, she said it should not be ignored that some entities like Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) are deeply critical of international law\, as it views the system as continuing the exploitation of the Third World by the West. And there are plenty of critics from the West who would agree that the system is internally flawed\, she said. \n\nThe ICC is fundamentally colonial in two ways: in its design and in its funding\, Swart argued. Its relationship to the Security Council allows it a measure of decision-making power\, and this influence can be obstructive\, as in the cases of Syria and the Al Bashir debacle\, she said. In terms of funding\, whereas the ad hoc committees are funded by UN\, the ICC is funded by a variety of states. The top funders are all from Europe (and Japan)\, giving them considerable ability to “pull strings in all kinds of ways.” This is an under-acknowledged way in which Western states plays a role in influencing the situations\, Swart said. Additionally\, the ICC prosecutor is acutely aware of the interests of these states\, she said\, “so she will never threaten the interests of United States and Japan\, for example.” \n\nSelectivity is another critical factor\, Swart said. “In a world full of international crimes where a lot of international crimes are being committed\, the ICC is fairly arbitrary.” The ICC does not choose a country\, it chooses a situation\, she explained. For example\, they will not choose Sudan or Congo\, but will select a particular situation within a country. All of the issues that the ICC focuses on make a statement about how it views its role in the world\, so how it chooses these situations is extremely meaningful. “Selectivity is the Achilles’ heel of international criminal justice; the aspect that gives it a dubious legitimacy\,” she said.  \n\nThis gives rise to the question: Why did African nations chose to become a part of the ICC if they had initial reservations? One theory is that some African states were pressurized to sign the agreement because the UN refused to provide them aid if they did not do so. An alternative explanation is that the African nations believed in the ICC’s ability to make a difference. In its early years\, the organization did not seem to be characterized by the traditional dialectic of North and South. The opinion about South Africa’s position on the ICC today is divided. “There is no question that the African nations are hostile toward the ICC\,” Swart said. The African Union is now in the process of creating their own instrument for international justice.  \n\nSwart argued that the effect of the ICC on African states has not only been negative; it has had some positive effects in that it has given African states something to mobilize around. For example\, Kenyans have strongly mobilized against ICC and they are not afraid to assert themselves in the Assembly of State Parties (capitals)\, she said. A pivotal question that this leads to is: How can the ICC be reformed? Swart offered the following strategies. Structurally\, it can be amended\, as their statute allows for it. The assembly of state parties can also play a much more important role in advocating for change\, and the ICC can be much stronger in its own rhetoric. “Perceptions matter\,” she said\, so the way the ICC communicates with the public is of key importance. The gravity threshold of the ICC prosecutor remains very unclear\, and they can have a more inclusive focus. And\, finally\, she argued that it is important to note that the constant focus of the ICC on Africa and their condescending attitude threatens the very existence of the court. There is a real chance that African states might actually withdraw\, which would mean over thirty states leaving the ICC\, greatly affecting its influence and legitimacy.  \n\n\n\nMia Swart is a visiting fellow at the Brookings Doha Center and research director at the HSRC in South Africa. Her research focus is on transitional justice\, international criminal law and comparative constitutional law. She is currently a Visiting Professor at the University of the Witwatersrand and was Professor of International Law at the University of Johannesburg and Associate Professor at the University of the Witwatersrand before joining Brookings. Her work has been cited by South African courts as well as by the International Criminal Court. Her co-edited book\, The Limits of Transition: The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission 20 Years After\, was published in 2017.  \n\n  \n\nArticle by Khansa Maria\, CIRS Student Assistant \n\n 
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/international-criminal-court-colonial-institution/
CATEGORIES:American Studies,Dialogue Series,Race & Society,Regional Studies
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2018/03/events_126736_46316_1522050628-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR