ETVT Human rights are more effectively protected by intervention than International Courts and Tribunals

T1 - Timeframe, no

Legal measures provide more sig long term effects than short term interventions.

Can provide accountability, deters future hr abuses. E.g. ICC prosecution of Thomas Lubanga for war crimes in DRC slow measure but created lasting legal framework, courts more effective.

Comp to HumInt that achieve swift but only short term success, e.g. Iraq, swift military invasion removed Hussein. Not enough time put into nation-building, assumption of ease in building democracy sparked Sunni insurgency, furthered anti-west sentiment, war immediately after they left.

T1 - Timeframe, yes

HumInt much faster than legal method, allows for rights to be protected quickly (before sig damage done).

E.g. NATO in Kosovo occurred without full UN approval, but fast so effectively halted ethnic cleansing. Both UN and NATO remain today, effectively stopped violence quickly.

Similar case in East Timor/Sierra Leone, swift UNSC/Britain response effectively stopped hr abuses.

Compared to Tribunals, many of which lasted 20+ years (Rwanda, Cambodia). Cambodia particularly sig, began 30 years after crimes, leaders who committed atrocities e.g. Pol Pot already died, many survivors died without seeing a conviction, couldn’t achieve justice.

T1 - Timeframe, overall

HumInt more effective as fast paced short term success allows violence to stop, sig examples of HumInt staying to achieve nation-building e.g. East Timor, B&H. Courts’ success extremely isolated, esp tribunals which do not stop or effectively make up for any hr abuses.

T2 – Consequences, no

Consequence of failed HumInt = lack of further ints. Resounding Failure in Somalia, hurt pub image with Battle of Mogadishu led to Clinton withdrawing forces, famine continued. Then led to lack of intervention in Rwanda, only UN observers with weak mandate. Led to one of fastest genocides in history.

Not necessarily the case with Courts, e.g. ICC has little power and there exists ways around judgement (Putin BRICS SAfrica, Yahu Orban Hungary), does not stop from issuing arrest warrants that have swaying power e.g. Western approval of Putin arrest warrant, Yahu arrest warrant claimed to be respected by sig number of nations e.g. UK, Canada, SAfrica, France.

T2 – Consequences, yes

Threat of court’s infringing on sovereignty weakens power and influence.

Consequence of lack of hard power. Tribunals undermined by Russia (veto UNSC resolution regarding shot down plane), China (boycott illegal claiming of land).

Also seen with ICC, US has American Service Members Protection Act + bilateral agreements with other states to ignore ICC.

Use of force with HumInt cannot be undermined E.G. Libya, not member of ICC (Gaddafi evade scrutiny) but NATO still able to destroy air force and heavy weapons, Gaddafi killed viewed as short term highly successful.

T2 – Consequences, overall

Lack of power not made up for by consistent warrants, use of force far better stops curtailing of hr even in not always effective.