This paper is actually really cool. It evolved so many times as I was writing it… topic to topic, but then finally, while I was preparing for the mid-term, I kind of got it. I really like this essay because in the midst of an incredibly secular (or as they would call it, “academic”) study of the Bible, I was still able to pick out some of the things I learned in Bible School from the class.

The main principle comes in the form of the Deuteronomic Thesis. When I read this, I was like. Wow! It was basically a very “academic” way of saying what I learned in Bible School – this is, learning to rest in Christ. The thesis basically states this: that when the Israelites were trusting Jehovah, they were prospering; and when they weren’t, they were in trouble. That of course is a very basic way of stating the thesis. I think I talk about it more in the essay.

The Woman Who Fears the Lord
By Chris Evangelista, November 24, 2005
Prof. S. Metso
NMC280H1, Hebrew Bible

Found in Proverbs 31 is the prominent portrayal of a desirable woman. In the chapter, the woman’s importance is well-stated and is almost contradictory to the perception of women in Biblical times as inferior. This description is an exhortation of a woman who fears the Lord, which is in fact an application of the deuteronomistic thesis of the blessings promised for those in obedience to the Lord.

The key to this understanding is found in the initial description of the ideal woman in Proverbs 31: “A capable wife who can find? She is far more precious than jewels.” This word, “capable”, is the governing characteristic of this woman whose virtues are explained in the following verses. In More Precious than Pearls, this word is translated as “valour” or literally, strength. Heller then further explains that this valour also refers to wealth or abundance. She writes: “the poem begins by referring to the ideal Jewish woman as one who has the awareness of being blessed with abundance.” This description does not at first seem to be virtuous; however, when compared with the deuteronomic promises regarding blessings and curses, a clear parallel can be seen. Deuteronomy 28:1-2 reads: “If you will only obey the Lord your God, by diligently observing all his commandments that I am commanding you today, the Lord your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth; all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, if you obey the Lord your God.” This passage provides a clear cause for the abundant blessing that come upon Israel, and that is their obedience to the Lord. This cause can also be inferred for the wealth and abundance of the ideal wife, whose virtues are caused by her obedience to the YHWH.

Another approach is taken by Waltke in his commentary on the book of Proverbs. While also referring to the “capable wife” as a “woman of valour”, Waltke explores the possibility that this ideal woman can be paralleled with the “Woman of Wisdom” in Proverbs 1 and 8. In these chapters, wisdom is personified as a woman: “Wisdom cries out in the street; in the squares she raises her voice” ; “Does not wisdom call, and does not understanding raise her voice?” This argument is further solidified when you consider the common characteristics of Woman of Wisdom and the Woman of Valour: both valiant, rare, precious, and trustworthy. That the valiant wife is an allegory for the woman of wisdom is the assertion that this woman fears the Lord for “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction”. From this we can yet again infer that this valiant wife is one who is obedient to the YHWH, which as the deuteronomic thesis states allow her to be blessed and be a blessing. Furthermore, Waltke writes argues that the woman of valour is used by God as a heroic figure, in much the same way that he used the ancient judges and kings in order to do good for His people. This comparison of the woman of valour and of ancient judges and kings further solidifies her parallel with the deuteronomic thesis, which is applied traditionally to the judges and kings. Through this or Heller’s explanation, it is still clear that the virtues of this “capable woman” are derived from her obedience to YHWH.

The rest of the chapter goes on to give examples of the deeds of “capable wife”, which Waltke explains is as “an important contributor to the economy of the family and of the community.” In verses 13-22, her impact on the physical well-being of her family is clearly seen. She is a diligent worker whose entrepreneurial skills are profitable for her household, and even goes as far as the ability to handle real estate and business. She also provides necessities such as food, commodities, and clothing, or even luxuries such as “food from far away.” This contribution to the economic needs of her household is part of the blessings promised by YHWH in the Deuteronomy 28:” Blessed shall you be in the city, and blessed shall you be in the field. Blessed shall be the fruit of your womb, the fruit of your ground, and the fruit of your livestock, both the increase of your cattle and the issue of your flock… The Lord will make you abound in prosperity… These blessings are most clearly seen in verses 15 and 16 where her labours are clearly fruitful: “she rises while it is still night and provides food for her household… she considers a field and buys it; with the fruit of her hands she plants a vineyard”. And then, these promised blessings are not only the needs but also for abundance, which is expressed in verse 20, “She opens her hand to the poor, and reaches out her hands to the needy”. For not only is she able to provide for her household, but has an abundance to be shared with those who are needy.

The blessings further promises the Israelites their prominence established among the nations: “The Lord will establish you as his holy people, as he has sworn to you, if you keep the commandments of the Lord your God and walk in his ways. All the peoples of the earth shall see that you are called by the name of the Lord, and they shall be afraid of you.” This is seen, though in a smaller sense with the capable woman and her effect on how her household is seen in the social standing. Her husband is well known and is an elder while she herself is known to be clothed in strength and dignity. She is also a teacher in knowledge, and does not live in idle. These socio-moral virtues are what other would attribute to the capable wife, as would other nations attribute moral leadership to the nation of Israel in their obedience to the Lord, and their purpose to follow his commandments. Such is the effect on the capable woman and her family’s social standing as a result of her obedience to YHWH.

Finally, these virtues are passed on to her children, who see her example and consider her “happy”. This is a theme of the deuteronomic thesis, as children are almost always mentioned when the promises of prosperity is given to the Israelites: “Choose life so that you and your descendants may live, loving the Lord your God, obeying him, and holding fast to him.” This realization that the children have of her happiness is also their acknowledgement of the path she took in order to live a worthy life. Heller writes that they recognize “in short, that she has been a superlative mother, they respect her accordingly, and they are ready to continue along the path she has set out before them.” This is the culmination and ultimate realization of the woman’s capability, that she now has the ability to pass on to her children the godly lifestyle that she has chosen to live. That her children consider her happy is their own realization that they will also be happy should they choose the path that she has set out for them. It does not end there, though, as she also has an influence on her husband who also calls her happy and goes on to praise her: “many women have done excellently, but you surpass them all.” This shows her role in the spiritual development of those around her, which in addition to the legacy left to her children, is also another example of how YHWH has used her as an example to those around her: “She has risen above others, because her family members all need her… as the primary educator of her children, she will always be the one whose expectations they want to fulfill. As helpmate to her husband, she encourages him in the right direction.” She is the embodiment of YHWH’s grand plan to use his people as an example for other nations.

The end of the chapter is the reiteration of the merit in fearing the Lord. It even compared to charm and beauty which are seen as deceitful and vain, while fearing the Lord is to be praised. To be lifted up is what should be done to the virtues which uphold the demands of YHWH’s laws. Its influence is far reaching; just as the Lord’s blessings would have been should Israel have simply obeyed him. Though in a much limited since, these blessings are seen in the “capable woman” as she purposes to obey and trust in the Lord.

Sources
• Coogan, Michael D. “Proverbs 8” The New Oxford Annotated Bible (1989): 913-915.
• Coogan, Michael D. “Proverbs 31” The New Oxford Annotated Bible (1989): 913-915.
• Harris, Stephen L. “Chapter 25 / Proverbs” The Old Testament. An Introduction to the Hebrew Bible (2003): 298-301.
• Heller, Tziporah. “More Precious Than Pearls: Selected Insights into the Qualities of the Ideal Woman”. New York: Feldheim. 1993.
• Waltke, Bruce K. “The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 15:31” Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 2005.
• Masenya, Madipoane. “How Worthy is the Woman of Worth?” New York: Peter Lang Publishing. 2004.

This paper was my favourite paper of all – and the one I spent the most time on. Just the writing alone took just under 15 hours. Along with the research, I spent a total of about 50 hours on it. It makes sense, cause it was for my favourite class too. Political Science. And it was on a topic I really enjoyed.

I got a B+ on this paper, and an A- in the class. So all that work was worth it. This topic is also something that I’m sure I will write on again in the future.

The Legitimacy of the International Criminal Court
By Chris Evangelista, March 20, 2005
Prof. R. Diebert & J. Stein
POL108Y1, Global Networks

Introduction

On 7 July 1998, one-hundred-thirty nations voted in favour to adapt the Rome Statute, which is the governing document of the International Criminal Court (ICC). On 1 July 2002, the statute came into effect after 60 nations ratified the treaty, formally establishing the court; its purpose, to “promote the rule of law and ensure that the gravest international crimes do not go unpunished.” The ICC fulfills this purpose by prosecuting individuals for what are known as the “core crimes”: genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, as well as a new addition called crimes of aggression.

Since the conception of the Rome Statute, there has been much debate around the legitimacy of the court’s jurisdiction. The United States, a major player in world politics has been in opposition to the treaty from the very beginning, voting against it along with only 7 other nations. Then, on 31 December 2000, the very last day allowed, President Bill Clinton signed the treaty, hoping that it would give the United States a continuous voice of influence as the process of establishing the Court proceeds; however, he reiterated US concerns that the treaty remained fundamentally flawed and stated that he would not submit the treaty for ratification by his government. This US Opposition to the treaty continued with the administration of George W. Bush.

The United States remained active in the preparatory commission meetings but were not satisfied, stating that they “were ultimately unable obtain the remedies necessary to overcome our fundamental concerns.” As a result, when the treaty was ratified by enough countries to enable it to come into force on 11 April 2002, the United States withdrew its signature from the treaty “so as not to create unwarranted expectations of U.S. involvement in the Court.”

With the United States’ considerable influence, their opposition to the International Criminal Court severely hinders the court’s authority, and consequently, its mission to bring international criminals to justice. The question is: What roadblocks stand in the way of the International Criminal Court’s emergence as a legitimate source of justice against the transgressors of core crimes?

This paper will argue that the discrepancies between the authority of the ICC, as provided by the Rome Statute, and the democratic practices of nations like the United States are such that it becomes impossible for the ICC to be acceptable in its current form. The United States’ position regarding international justice is straightforward: while they wish to continue being a world leader in promoting the rule of law and punishing international criminals, they believe that “states, not international institutions are primarily responsible for ensuring justice in the international system.” Furthermore, they raise serious doubts around the legitimacy of the ICC because of what they call “fundamental flaws” that allow for the ICC to retain unchecked and unbalanced power, and to operate with a severe democratic deficit.

Universal Jurisdiction vs. State Sovereignty

The subject matter jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court is found in Article 5 of the Rome Statute. It assigns to the court the responsibility for four categories of crimes: the crime of genocide; crimes against humanity; war crimes; and, the crime of aggression. This list of crimes is not generally disputed, as a consensus has long been achieved that these are crimes that are of greatest concern to the human race. William Schabas writes of these crimes: “They dictate prosecution because humanity as a whole is the victim. Moreover, humanity as a whole is entitled, indeed required, to prosecute them for essentially the same reasons as we now say that humanity as a whole is concerned by violations of human rights that were once considered to lie within the exclusive prerogatives of State sovereignty.” These crimes were first established during the Nuremberg Trials after World War 2 and have evolved alongside the human rights movement to become well accepted as crimes which demand the most attention from the international community.

There is also wide acceptance for the definitions of these crimes, except for the crime of aggression. Although they were known by different names, most of these crimes were prosecuted in Nuremberg, and have since continued to evolve into what we know of today through treaties such as the 1984 Convention Against Torture. The only crime that is of concern to the opposition is the crime of aggression, which is a new crime that has yet to be defined.

So it is not the subject matter jurisdiction of the ICC that is of concern to those opposed to the treaty, but rather, the most debated element of the court’s jurisdiction are personal (ratione personae) jurisdiction, and territorial (ratione loci) jurisdiction. These are also the elements that perceivably give the ICC this “universal jurisdiction” that the Americans so bitterly complain about. While the personal jurisdiction of the ICC, as set out in Article 12 (2) (b) of the Rome Statute, is limited to the nationals of a State that is a party to the treaty, the court’s claim with regards to territorial jurisdiction would seem to override this: Article 12 (2) (a) of the Rome Statute states that the ICC will have jurisdiction over core crimes that are committed on the territory of its party states. Although the nationality of the offender is not mentioned in this clause, it is widely assumed, especially by the Americans, that this would mean that the Court has the jurisdiction to prosecute anyone, regardless of their nationality, who commits a core crime within the territory of a party state. Marc Grossman, of the United States Department of State writes: “The treaty threatens the sovereignty of the United States. The Court, as constituted today, claims the authority to detain and try American citizens, even though our democratically-elected representatives have not agreed to be bound by the treaty.” The Americans argue that in order for cases to be resolved legally, they should be handled on a case by case basis with the jurisdiction for difficult cases assigned by a competent authority. Their argument is exemplified in the way situations that required the prosecution of these crimes were resolved with in the past. This was through the ad hoc international tribunals that were established by the United Nations Security Council to investigate and prosecute crimes committed in Bosnia and Rwanda. Grossman continues his argument, stating: “In situations where violations are so grave as to amount to a breach of international peace and security… the international community may, and if necessary should, intercede through the UN Security Council.”

On the contrary, Helen Duffy, writing for Human Rights Watch, presents a different angle for this idea of “universal jurisdiction.” While reiterating the universal nature of the crimes prosecuted in the ICC, she also presents an interesting argument with respect to the territorial jurisdiction that States hold. In his response to the ICC’s claim over territorial jurisdiction, Marc Grossman writes: “While sovereign nations have the authority to try non-citizens who have committed crimes against their citizens or in their territory, the United States has never recognized the right of an international organization to do so absent consent or a UN Security Council mandate.” Duffy, on the other hand, puts a twist on this argument, making it favourable towards the universal jurisdiction of the Court. She writes: “By ratifying the statute, states would then confer upon the Court the power that each of them would have individually, to investigate and prosecute the crimes subject to universal jurisdiction, without being required to obtain the “acceptance” or “consent” of any State.” This differing perspective would, through their very own arguments, seem to satisfy American concerns about where the ICC’s authority is derived.

It is easy to see the implication that a State which chooses to become a party of the Rome Statute would in turn transfer their rights of prosecution to the ICC. That is why it is unfortunate that this is not explicitly stated in the Rome Statute as such a clause would have removed any doubts about where the ICC derives its jurisdiction. This argument is difficult to confront, as it is clear that from established precedents, the ICC has a legitimate claim to its territorial jurisdiction. However, there is problem that does arise when the term “universal jurisdiction” is applied.

Henry Kissinger would argue that the term “universal jurisdiction” is quite new, citing the term’s absence from the most recent edition at the time of Black’s Law Dictionary (an entry still has still not been made in the current – 8th – edition) as evidence of this. He writes: “The doctrine of universal jurisdiction is based on the proposition that the individuals or cases subject to it have been clearly identified… But many issues are much more vague… It is this fuzziness that risks arbitrariness on the part of prosecutors and judges.” The invocation of a universal jurisdiction is unsettling, having the connotation of absolute authority; for while it is true that the ICC’s legal claim to prosecute offenders of core crimes according to its statute is legitimate, the practice of such an authority must be kept accountable and in balance. Currently, according to Article 15 of the Rome Statute, the only requirement for the prosecutor to initiate an investigation or prosecution is the approval of two judges of a three judge panel. This system of self-checking and self-accountability within the ICC, the Americans maintain, could lead to politically motivated prosecutions. Such a possibility is not hard to imagine.

Independence from the United Nations

The International Criminal Court was created independent from the structure of the United Nations in order to remove the selective nature of the process by which international criminals were brought to justice. Jason Ralph writes: “The problem of ‘selectivity’ – justice was dependent on the will of the Security Council, in particular the permanent powers – created a powerful incentive to create a permanent court independent of the society of states.”
Before the ICC, it was the responsibility of sovereign states to prosecute or extradite those who are accused of committing a core crime, or the UN Security Council could create an international tribunal to act where the states were unable or unwilling to act; “with the creation of the ICC, perpetrators of core crimes can be brought to justice with minimal state involvement.”

To some, this independence from the United Nations is a necessity for justice to be served. To others, like the United States, this independence results in unchecked and unbalanced power for the court which opens it for abuses such as politically motivated prosecutions. Marc Grossman remarks: “in the rush to create a powerful and independent court in Rome, there was a refusal to constrain the Court’s powers in any meaningful way.” This American requirement of checks and balances is so deeply entrenched in its democratic process that it would not easily – if at all – be done away with. Henry Kissinger writes: “It may be possible to negotiate modifications of the present statute to make the ICC more compatible with U.S. constitutional practice. But in its present form of assigning the ultimate dilemmas of international politics to unelected jurist – and to an international judiciary at that – it represents [a] fundamental change in U.S. constitutional practice.” This constitutional practice that he speaks of is the interpretation of the rule of law as the result or consequence of the will of the American people, codified in the American constitution. The threat that the ICC presents to this practice is to remove the will of the American people from the rule of law. Because it is not accountable to any governing body (such as the UN), the ICC is therefore not accountable to the American people (as the United States Government is). A democratic deficit is created.

It can be argued that the ICC is in fact accountable to the United Nations through Article 16 of the Rome Statute. This allows for the United Nations Security Council to stop an investigation or prosecution by deferring it through a UN Resolution adapted under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations for a renewable period of one year. In response to this, Henry Kissinger writes: “Since revoking an indictment is subject to the veto of any permanent Security Council member, and since the prosecutor is unlikely to issue an indictment without the backing of at least one permanent member of the Security Council, [the prosecutor] has virtually unlimited discretion.” He argues that while this allowance is provided for in the statute, in practice, it is essentially of no use. It is interesting then to note that the United States has in fact already taken advantage of this clause.

At the insistence of the United States (in fact, a threat to veto the renewal of the Security Council mission to in Bosnia ), the UN Security Council passed Resolutions 1422 and 1487, which formally requested, under Article 16, that the ICC refrain from any prosecutions or investigations relating to any UN established or authorized operation. Another resolution, Resolution 1497, which was a passed in response to the situation in Liberia in 2003, does not even make a request under Article 16 but rather assigns exclusive jurisdiction to the contributing states over the actions of their personnel, seemingly usurping the authority of the ICC. In this instance, there is no time limit specified, as would have been required by Article 16.

These case studies would seem disprove Henry Kissinger’s argument that the deferral clause of the Rome Statute is essentially useless; however, this situation is entirely different from the one that he had presented. In these cases, the resolutions adopted were passed before an investigation could even be launched by the ICC. In Kissinger’s situation, the ICC would have already initiated an investigation, and it would have been the responsibility of the Security Council, should it have found that the investigation interferes with its mission under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, to stop it. No such case has yet presented itself, and so it would be difficult to say whether or not this problem would arise.

While it is extremely unlikely that something like the ICC could be used as a forum to settle political vendettas, the truth is that such a possibility does exist despite Article 16’s attempt creating accountability for the court. Paul Kahn writes: “Supporters of the International Criminal Court seem to think that the invocation of law is a kind of trump to politics.” This could be true in an ideal world; though unfortunately, ideal is not the world that we live in. And more often than not, politics has a tendency, especially at this level, to seep its way in to even the firmest of laws and treaties. As Henry Kissinger writes: “It would be ironic if a doctrine designed to transcend the political process turns into a means to pursue political enemies rather than universal justice.”

The removal of the ICC from the framework of the United Nations is impractical and could even be a little dangerous as its mission could become distorted by the drama of international politics. At the very least, the authority of the United Nations Security Council should be reaffirmed by allow it a more direct responsibility in providing a check for the authority of the Prosecutors and Judges. This would not only ease the concerns of the Americans, but also legitimizes the mission of the ICC by making it accountable to the international community.

Limitations and Conclusions

There are many more issues within the bureaucratic and procedural realms inside the International Criminal Court that simply could not be addressed in this paper. These issues include, but are not limited to, defining the crime of aggression and the opt-out option for party states. These issues were certainly connected to the larger problems of the democratic deficit in the ICC, and the definition of its universal jurisdiction, but space constraint just did not allow their exploration.

It should also be noted that an argument was presented that contained the ever controversial issue of the veto powers of the permanent members of the UN Security Council. The United States argued that the veto power could be abused by a permanent member of the council to allow a politically motivated prosecution to proceed while taking advantage of this power themselves in order to pursue their own agenda in dealing with the ICC. This paper does not make any attempts to resolve this issue, as veto powers are a separate and equally complex problem. It would of course be profitable to explore the relationship of the veto powers with the ICC, especially when dealing with the specifics of how the ICC should become more accountable to the United Nations.

On that note, this paper dealt largely with the “whys” of this issue, rather than the “how’s.” An attempt has not been made to show how the ICC should make itself more accountable to the international community, but rather, why it should do so.

It was quite easy to establish that the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, contrary to American arguments, does indeed have legal precedent to be considered legitimate. The ICC derives its right to prosecute core crimes from the right of sovereign states do just that. Then, on becoming a party to the treaty, the states transfer this right to the Court, enabling the ICC to act on its behalf without its specific permission for every single issue.

The problem that arises with this jurisdiction is when the term “universal” is applied. This tends to suggest that the authority of the ICC is limitless, possibly allowing Prosecutors and Judges the freedom to pursue their own agenda, which can lead to politically motivated prosecutions. This also raises the issue of the democratic deficit that is created when the ICC is removed from the authority and accountability of the United Nations.

This removal from the established international community is a direct contradiction of the democratic practices of nations like the United States of America, which is arguably the most powerful nation in the world. This contradiction against American democracy could very well be the biggest roadblock preventing the International Criminal Court from emerging as a truly legitimate source of justice against transgressors of core crimes.

By separating the will of the American people from the rule of law, the ICC should not expect to gain any allies in the American government. Two presidents from opposing ends of the political spectrum have already rejected the treaty: Clinton, a democrat; and Bush, a republican. It is clear that the problem is not even one of politics, but of democracy. In order for the ICC to become truly legitimized, it must gain support from the Americans. In order for the ICC to gain support from the Americans, it must subject itself to the accountability of the international community, so as to restore some sort of democratic link from the people to the organization. Otherwise, it will remain constricted by the same political manoeuvrings that it was supposed to transcend in the first place.

The irony is that the ICC must submit itself to the authority of the United Nations Security Council, in order for it to be truly become independent of the Council’s political nature. Only when the ICC is accountable to the international community will it become truly legitimized. And only then will the ICC be able to freely pursue its mission of bringing justice to mankind.

Sources

• International Criminal Court: Historical Introduction. 14 November 2005: (http://www.icc-cpi.int/about/ataglance/history.html)
• Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 5: Paragraph 1. 14 November 2005: (http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/romefra.htm)
• Fact Sheet: The International Criminal Court. 6 May 2002. US Mission to the European Union. 14 November 2005: (http://www.useu.be/Categories/Justice%20and%20Home%20Affairs/May0602ICCFactSheet.html)
• Grossman, Marc. American Foreign Policy and the International Criminal Court. 6 May 2002. US Department of State. 17 March 2006: (http://www.state.gov/p/9949.htm)
• Schabas, William A. 2001. An Introduction to the International Criminal Court. Cambridge: University Press.
• Duffy, Helen. 1998. Justice in Balance. New York: Human Rights Watch.
• Kissinger, Henry. 1998. The Pitfalls of Universal Jurisdiction. Foreign Affairs Vol. 80, No. 4.
• Ralph, Jason. 2005. International society, the International Criminal Court and American Foreign Policy. Review of International Studies Vol. 30, No. 1. 28.
• Kahn, Paul W. Why the United States is so Opposed. December 2003. The International Criminal Court. 17 March 2006: (http://www.crimesofwar.org/icc_magazine/icc-kahn.html)