On March 18, Congolese militia leader Bosco Ntaganda surrendered himself unexpectedly to the U.S. Embassy in Kigali, Rwanda asking for transfer to the International Criminal Court (ICC) at The Hague, where he was wanted for allegedly committing crimes against humanity. The apprehension of ICC indictees was one of the main challenges raised during the Program on Human Right's (PHR) Sanela Diana Jenkins Human Rights Speaker Series last quarter. Ntaganda’s voluntary surrender provoked reflection on the lessons learned from the seminar’s evaluation of the ICC’s impact on international justice as it marked its first decade and exploration of its mandate moving forward.

Featuring lectures from international experts, academics, and activists, the seminar addressed many of the current challenges and future hopes of the ICC, including competing notions of justice and peace, budgetary constraints, and victims’ rights.

The series was led by PHR Director Helen Stacy and UCLA Law Professor Richard Steinberg, also a visiting scholar at Stanford's department of political science. They both kicked off the series by presenting the history and structure of the ICC and concluded with a discussion on its impact, commenting on how the ICC has helped shape the narrative on mass atrocities.

“Reflecting Diana Jenkins' personal commitment to restoring dignity, prosperity, justice and hope to those who most need it, the human rights speaker series aims to engage students on the most pressing human rights issues of our time,” said Stacy. “The International Criminal Court's 10th anniversary invites careful thought about its role so far, and its future. Our speakers brought an extensive range of opinions on the Court, but everyone agreed that the very existence of the Court has advanced the dialogue on international justice.”

A wide array of positions were offered by the speakers, representing the nonprofit, academic and policymaking arenas. Citing some of the limitations facing the ICC, Human Rights Watch’s Director of International Justice Program Richard Dicker made a compelling case for the Court, highlighting the role of civil society in promoting the adoption of the Rome Statute - the treaty that established the ICC - by its 122 current signatories.

William Pace, convener of the Coalition for the International Criminal Court described the Rome Statute as “among the greatest advancements ever in international human rights law.”

Stanford political science Professor James Fearon questioned whether the Court can be effective in deterring mass atrocities while relying on states parties to turn over suspects without a police force of its own. He argued that the Court may in fact limit the liability of human rights abusers because it gives them a choice of whether (or not) to turn themselves over to the ICC for trial. This could potentially contribute to prolonged civil conflict if governments’ hands are tied in offering backdoor deals in exchange for an end to the conflict.

Many speakers proposed modifications to the current ICC structure and suggested the following measures to enhance the work of the Court:

• Cherif Bassiouni, who led the drafting committee to launch the ICC, emphasized the need for the Court to appoint well-trained judges;
• David Scheffer, former U.S. Ambassador at Large for War Crimes Issues, highlighted the tremendous diplomatic challenge of not having instruments of arrest or enforcement under ICC control and limited to pressuring states parties to follow through on their obligation to detain indictees of the Court;
• Carla Ferstman, director of REDRESS, a human rights organization that helps torture survivors obtain justice and reparations, focused on the challenges presented by the ICC's distance from the home countries of those on trial and how victims might have a more significant role in the justice process.

Recognizing the ICC’s inevitable growing pains, Shamila Batohi, a senior legal advisor to the Office of the Prosecutor, offered a hopeful conclusion to the series, reminding students of the Court’s commitment to protecting the rights of the more than 2.3 billion people represented by the statute’s 122 states parties and ending impunity for war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.

“Over the course of these nine weeks, students, faculty, and our guest speakers collaborated to develop a range of policies that could potentially improve the ICC system,” said Richard Steinberg. “Though the colloquium took place here on the Stanford campus, the broader collaboration engaged 19,000 users in a fruitful discussion via an online forum.”

Following each lecture, Dr. Diane Steinberg led a dinner discussion for interested students to distill the speaker’s main points into a thought-provoking question to be debated by a global audience on the Human Rights & International Criminal Law Online Forum. Stanford students joined forum participants from around the world to discuss vital questions, such as: “How should the relationship between the International Criminal Court and the United Nations Security Council be changed, if at all, to advance international justice?” and “Assuming that the ICC chooses to retain victim participation in its processes, how can victims’ representation at the ICC be improved and victims’ rights be protected?”

The seminar left students with these provocative questions – and many more – to ponder while tracking the Ntaganda case and the future trial of Uhuru Kenyatta, Kenya’s newly elected president wanted by the ICC for crimes against humanity following the 2007 presidential elections.

Stay tuned for more information on the 2014 Sanela Diana Jenkins Speakers Series, which will focus on the right to health and healthcare delivery.

President Barack Obama’s 2014 budget proposal promises significant food aid reform that will enable the United States to feed about 4 million more people without a significant increase of the current $1.8 billion spent on feeding the world's most hungry. Since the food aid program's inception in 1954, the U.S. has helped feed more than 1 billion people in more than 150 countries, and remains the largest provider of international food aid.

The intention of the reform is to make food aid more efficient, cost effective, and flexible. It aims to use local and regional markets to lower the cost of food and speed its delivery, and calls for the use of cash transfers and electronic food vouchers.

The proposed reforms would also end monetization—the sale of U.S. food abroad to be sold by local NGOs for cash. This practice has been criticized for hurting vulnerable communities by depriving local farmers of the incentives and opportunities to develop their own livelihoods. Several studies, including one by the Government Accountability Office, found monetization to be costly and inefficient—an average of 25 cents per taxpayer dollar spent on food aid is lost.

Barry Riley, a food aid expert and visiting fellow at the Center on Food Security and the Environment, discusses his perspective on the importance of these new reforms, their chances of passage, and the country's current role in international food aid.

Why is local procurement such an important addition to food aid reform?

An increase of funding for local and regional procurement is the most important programmatic element of the proposed reforms. It would help managers working in food security-related development programs to determine for each emergency what commodities are most appropriate and where they can be procured most quickly and inexpensively. Some studies have shown local and regional procurement of food and other cash-based programs can get food to people in critical need 11 to 15 weeks faster at a savings of 25-50 percent. Equally important, local procurement is less likely to disrupt local economic conditions, but rather promote self-sufficiency by increasing demand (often for preferred local staples) and incomes of local producers. The move to 45 percent local (and 55 percent tied) procurement is a BIG step, and one to face strong opposition from American commodity interests and U.S.-flag shippers. 

How difficult is it to ensure vouchers and electronic cash transfers are getting into the hands of people that really need the aid?

Vouchers (and similar urban coupon shops) have been used many times over the past decades as a food transfer mechanism (also sometimes used in food for work programs) enabling the recipient to trade the voucher(s) for foodstuffs when it is most convenient or when they are most needed. Electronic vouchers are new, and how well they work depends on local situations. In places like urban Latin America, Africa and India, it probably could be made to work quite well; the technology is evolving quickly that would enable this sort of transfer mechanism.  

Rural Ethiopia, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Malawi – probably not so well. I’m admittedly skeptical that electronic transfers of purchasing power to remote areas would be sufficient in most cases to motivate traders to move food to these hungry areas. Their risks are extremely high and, in my experience in Africa, traders will only deliver food to remote rural areas (inevitably over very bad roads) if they can command prices considerably higher than costs plus a high risk premium.

Why aren’t international food aid organizations more in favor of direct dollar support for local operating costs?

There is (and has long been) opposition among many of the NGOs to the President’s proposal to replace “monetization” with a promise of on-going direct dollar support for the local operating costs of NGO food security-related projects. They believe it will continue to be easier to get Congress to approve money to buy American food commodities to ship overseas than to get approval for dollars to ship overseas, particularly in light of tightening budgets. These NGOs have tended, over the years, to receive a sympathetic ear from Congress.

The proposal shifts oversight of the food aid program from the Agriculture Committees within the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to the Foreign Affairs/Relations Committees of the State Department’s U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). What is the likelihood of Congress approving this transfer?

The chance of that happening, in this of all Congresses, is about the same as winning the Power Ball Lottery. Crusty committee chair-people are extremely sensitive to reductions in their empires and the agriculture committees – especially in the Senate – are powerful committees. On top of that, there are so many elements in the overall 2014 federal budget creating heartburn on the Hill that food aid considerations are far, far, far down the line. The best the President is likely to get in the present divided Congress are hearings and a continuing resolution of some sort.

What did you wish to see in the food aid reform proposal that was not addressed in this budget?

Change, if it ever comes, will likely be incremental and halting. I’ll be happy to see any step, however small, in the right direction. The total end of tied procurement would be at the top of my wish list. Even more important, perhaps, iron-clad, multi-year commitments of funding to food security programs intended to overcome long-term institutional impediments to achieving enduring food security in low income food deficit situations…and sticking with such commitments for 15 years.

What role does food aid play in advancing American foreign policy goals?

Most importantly, by being the single largest source of food commodities to the World Food Program in confronting disaster and emergency situations. Food support to American NGOs has been under-evaluated over the past 40 years. I’ll be talking about this later in the book I am writing, but these small projects were all that kept agricultural development (and early food security efforts) going in many small countries during the “dark decades” when international finance institutions and bilateral donors were not financing agricultural development. There are valuable on-the-ground lessons in that NGO food-assisted experience still waiting to be assessed.

Let me add, given what we know about the onset of serious climate change in the decades to come, the need to supply large amounts of food to populations suffering severe food deprivation will probably grow in the future. Where will the food come from and who will pay for those future transfers?

While the U.S. remains the largest provider of food aid, what can the EU and Canada teach the U.S. about food aid policy?

Donors hate to think that other donors have something to teach them. But, of course, they always do. The Canadian and European experience with food aid is best summed up in the way their objective has come to be restated over the past 15 or so years: not “food aid” but “aid for food.” The purpose of assistance intended to improve food security is to improve either, or both, availability and access over the long term (leave nutrition aside for a moment).

European and Canadian assistance can be much more flexible in choosing the instruments – food, cash, technical assistance, training, institutional strengthening, public policy, public-private cooperation, etc. – required to achieve a realistic food security goal which I would describe as pretty good assurance that most people can get their hands on the food they need most of the time. Commodity food aid, in some form – or the promise of its ready availability when needed – will probably need to be part of the total array of inputs required for the several years needed in particular food insecure countries to achieve that “pretty good assurance.” Europe and Canada are closer to understanding this and have become appropriately flexible in concerting resources to get it done. That’s the lesson.