The International Criminal Court was right to issue an arrest warrant, but should have looked at past successes with the label
The recent decision
Muammar Gaddafi to discuss the question arose whether the transition to peace is helped or hindered by the public arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) . Although not being the value of "name and shame" leaders accused of mass atrocities, protect the confidentiality of charges through the sealed arrest warrants may ultimately facilitate better implementation of international justice .
The accusation of leaders like Gaddafi is inserted into the "peace against justice" debate. On the one hand, the pursuit of justice is presented as an obvious obstacle to peace, for no leader rational power is negotiated and a courtroom.
other hand, argues that there can be no sustainable peace if justice does not stay the hand of vengeance. An intermediate position argues that the two concepts can coexist if the requirements of justice are arranged in a way that gives priority to the immediate needs of realpolitik compromises, such as amnesty or exile, at least until it becomes politically expedient to implement the responsibility.
Although he never be a correct answer, especially given the various complicated circumstances of a particular case, how was issued an international arrest warrant can be a great impact on this "peace against justice" dynamic.
an international arrest warrant public, as in the case of Gaddafi, seems to create a confrontation between justice and politics. However, by definition, international justice is not negotiable. As with any legal system, the International Criminal Court as a bastion of international justice can not be regarded as a legal institution that, once invoked, can be ignored. The problem is that the defendant remains a leader in power, the current configuration of our international system leading international actors of the leading defendants to implement many complex aspects of conflict resolution. This results in situations such as the appointment of Sudan to the ICC Ahmad Muhammad Harun suspect in the forefront of humanitarian operations in the region, which requires coordination between the wanted war crimes suspects and relief agencies, including the United Nations.In these cases, the ICC prosecutor has decided not to issue arrest warrants under seal? First against Bashir, the leader of Sudan, and two supposed allies. Second, against six accused leaders in sectors and allied with the government of Kenya. And thirdly, against Gaddafi, the leader of Libya under siege, and two power devices. Therefore, applications for arrest warrants unsealed seems to be made when international fair shares are at their highest when peace justice debate is more sensitive to demands for accountability placed front and center. But this strategy is?