International criminal justice grinds slowly, but it can grind exceedingly small. Former Liberian president and warlord Charles Taylor was first indicted in 2003 for crimes against humanity, in a UN court over which I presided. Then, he strutted the world stage as a head of state. Ghana refused our request to arrest him when he visited and Nigeria gave him refuge for several years. There was a general expectation that he would escape trial, but the whirligig of time brings its changes and revenges: on Wednesday Taylor was sentenced to 50 years imprisonment, for aiding and abetting 11 kinds of war crimes and crimes against humanity — ranging from terrorism, rape and murder of civilians, to recruiting child soldiers and child sex slaves.
The power to punish heads of state for crimes against humanity is a recent discovery: Oliver Cromwell’s lawyers managed it with King Charles I, but their judges were in due course executed for treason. Napoleon we exiled instead to St Helena, and not even F.E. Smith and Lloyd George could persuade their allies at Versailles to try the Kaiser for invading Belgium.
LEGAL PRECEDENT
Nuremberg created a precedent, but it was not until Augusto Pinochet came to London in 1998 to take tea with Mrs Thatcher that the idea of ending the impunity of political and military leaders seemed possible. In those days it was bitterly controversial: the pope, Henry Kissinger, George H.W. Bush, and even Fidel Castro wrote to then-UK home affairs minister Jack Straw demanding that he be freed. However, today there are no such efforts on behalf of Taylor: International justice is here to stay.
That does not mean it should be welcomed uncritically, or that its principal defect should be overlooked — namely it does not in practice apply to the “big five” powers in the UN Security Council, or to their close friends (hence Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has thus far escaped indictment because Russia supports him). However, justice has its own momentum and this will selectivity will change. The importance of the Taylor decision, for example, is that it creates a precedent for prosecuting those who “aid and abet” by sending assistance to brutal factions in a civil war. Former US president Ronald Reagan’s conduct in arming the Nicaraguan Contras, if it occurred again, would be seen as comparable to the conduct for which Taylor was convicted.
Taylor supplied arms, ammunition and money to the rebels (and even the herbs that child soldiers were told to rub on their bodies to protect them from bullets) in return for a share of their spoils. What fixed him with criminal liability was that he provided this assistance at the time he knew, from reading newspapers, that the rebels were committing widespread and systematic atrocities. On this basis, any political or military leader who sends arms or ammunition to the brutal forces in Syria is guilty of aiding and abetting what is clearly a crime against humanity.
IMPROVEMENTS
The Taylor proceedings are far from over: both prosecution and defense are appealing. The prosecution in fact suffered some serious defeats: It failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Taylor was “godfather” (in league with deposed Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi) of the mass-murdering and mass-mutilating rebel factions, or even that he had joined in their blood-curdling conspiracy. However, according to the court, he knew and he approved and he assisted. Yet it remains open to question whether this is enough to convict him of aiding crimes which require “specific intent,” such as rape or terrorism, so his appeal may on these counts be upheld.
An example of how international justice still needs improvement is provided by the three-year duration of Taylor’s trial (seven months were taken up by his own testimony) and the unacceptable 13-month delay in delivering the judgment. Particularly jarring is the 50-year sentence, which consigns Taylor to prison until his 114th birthday. The US prosecutor, ludicrously, had demanded 80 years. It is a peculiarity of US criminal justice to sentence people to terms that expire long after they will: it is a custom both irrational and cruel which should have no place in international justice.
The UK has offered to house Taylor in its prisons, but not for a sentence of such unconscionable length. The appeal court is likely to reduce it. Taylor was, after all, acquitted of much more serious offenses; and for all the horror produced by his money and his munitions, punishment must always be kept in perspective. The real problem for international justice is the diplomats and politicians — in the UN Security Council — who refuse to send those who ordered the bayoneting of Syrian children in their homes to the International Criminal Court.
Geoffrey Robertson QC is author of Crimes Against Humanity.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long been expansionist and contemptuous of international law. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), the CCP regime has become more despotic, coercive and punitive. As part of its strategy to annex Taiwan, Beijing has sought to erase the island democracy’s international identity by bribing countries to sever diplomatic ties with Taipei. One by one, China has peeled away Taiwan’s remaining diplomatic partners, leaving just 12 countries (mostly small developing states) and the Vatican recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign nation. Taiwan’s formal international space has shrunk dramatically. Yet even as Beijing has scored diplomatic successes, its overreach
In her article in Foreign Affairs, “A Perfect Storm for Taiwan in 2026?,” Yun Sun (孫韻), director of the China program at the Stimson Center in Washington, said that the US has grown indifferent to Taiwan, contending that, since it has long been the fear of US intervention — and the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) inability to prevail against US forces — that has deterred China from using force against Taiwan, this perceived indifference from the US could lead China to conclude that a window of opportunity for a Taiwan invasion has opened this year. Most notably, she observes that
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) said on Monday that it would be announcing its mayoral nominees for New Taipei City, Yilan County and Chiayi City on March 11, after which it would begin talks with the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) to field joint opposition candidates. The KMT would likely support Deputy Taipei Mayor Lee Shu-chuan (李四川) as its candidate for New Taipei City. The TPP is fielding its chairman, Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌), for New Taipei City mayor, after Huang had officially announced his candidacy in December last year. Speaking in a radio program, Huang was asked whether he would join Lee’s
RSS