IPWG goes The Hague: Summary

Colonel Muammar Gaddafi is dead. What should happen with Libya after that? This current topic, after serious bloodshed in the country, raised questions about the role of international community in dealing with the consequences of Qaddafi’s fall.

Preparing for the event

This topic was the theme of the event ‘IPWG goes The Hague’, held in Utrecht, Holland. The main focus of this event was the question of transitional justice for Libya. In other words, we were looking for the most appropriate option for Libyan transition to democracy. To get into the topic, both organisers and participants watched the documentary named The State of Denial, made by Arabic broadcaster Al-Jazeera. The step-by-step process of Libyan revolution against Gaddafi’s regime offered useful background of the conflict.

‘Visiting’ Yugoslavia in Holland

To broaden the view, we then visited the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY), situated in The Hague. The trip consisted of two parts. First, we took part in Radovan Karadzic’s hearing before the ICTY. Secondly, we discussed the role of international law and justice with Matthew Gillett, Trial Attorney in the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICTY. After getting more acquainted with the topic, there was room for final discussion about the subject.

Continuing the debate regarding Libya

During the debate, the fundamental question was raised: What type of court is better for Libya to enforce justice in – a national or an international one? A national court provides a more specific view of the topic and thereby takes Libyan culture into account. On the other hand, it is hard to guarantee a fair trial, because politics can prevail. In that case, prosecution of the winning side of the conflict is very unlikely, because of the opportunity to give amnesty. Such process is called justice of winners. Latin American countries, like Chile or El Salvador, are illustrative examples. Moreover, the democratic movement in Libya is not certain. This is revealed by the execution of Colonel Gaddafi.

An international court, on one hand, is more likely to offer fair trials. Since an international body should provide neutral judges, the very advantage of this option is that law will be preferred to politics. Of course, there is a disadvantage as well. As Western ideas of justice are mostly based on Human Rights declarations, the Libyan society could perceive the implementation of these ideas as a dictate of foreigners. As a result of this, the implementation of an international court can risk unpopularity among the masses and increase fundamentalism.  For example, a similar process took place in former Yugoslavia where negative public opinion about the role of the ICTY prevailed.

At the end of the discussion, arguments for a national court for Libyan transition to democracy outweighed the international one. Why? Firstly, the Western world has a very dubious past in the Arabic world because of colonialism. That is why we can hardly claim moral superiority through Human Rights declarations. Secondly, we should let Libya find its own way to change itself; the country and politicians can either grow up into a modern nation or fall back into violence. Last but not least, it is dubious that opposition leaders who have committed crimes will not be extradited anyway. For this reasons, the final outcome of the debate favors the national court for Libya.

Written by Ivan Bielik, AEGEE-Brno