by Mariam Metwally, Egypt 
When I randomly signed up to write a blog on the 16th of August, I had no idea that I will be writing about, in my opinion, one of the most influencing, interesting and exciting days of this symposium. As we go by the third day of the simulation; what is believed to be the outcome of more than three weeks of hard work, incredible speakers, controversial ideas, conflicting and challenging thoughts, we all came to our own conclusions of how this experience had changed and modified our personalities whether personally or professionally. It’s undeniable that these last three days of the symposium made each and every participant think about what should/could be the next step whether academically, professionally, or even personally. As I cannot speak for 52 incredible, magnificent, unique, and brilliant participants, I think I will just proceed with this blog talking about my own experience, my own conclusion.

Before coming to the Hague, I was on the verge of losing hope in the Egyptian revolution, I was so close to believing that I will not live long enough to see the outcome of what we started as we hoped it will be in my time, and I was ok with that on some level as long as it will impact generations to come, I was and still am happy with the changes I saw in my country this far. However, when I arrived to the symposium and met all these people from all different spots in the world and fascinating stories and when I looked to their faces while I gave a very modest presentation about what has been occurring in Egypt in the past two years, they made me realize something I had forgotten a long time ago. I forgot that you need to see your own problems from other people’s perspectives as well as your own; other views can make you regain faith in what you thought you have lost. IPSI people gave me that.

As I tried throughout the symposium to use what I was learning to analyze the situation in Egypt, I came to understand that when it comes down to it, transitioning, it’s never about what you learned in school or read in the manual. It will all depend on the people around the table, those in position of power, their interests and their own analysis of the situation. The last three days of the symposium, the staff put us in a simulation for the transition of the fictional country of Kanraystan.

As we sat around the table in complete character from the US ambassador, the UN representative, the president, the province and district governor to Taliban, I was amazed and fascinated with how we actually could have accomplished some kind of transition in this conflict zone if we were given more time and resources. And it wasn’t just because we are the most brilliant incredible thoughtful peacemakers group of all time, it was simply because of the effort and dedication put into it. I learned that if you are willing to play politics in life, you have to realize that at one point, you will pause and look at yourself and think, I would have never taken this decision 20 years ago, I am terrified of this thought and to be honest it made me rethink a lot of goals. At the same time, being in such positions, is the only way that you can make a difference and influence the track of any story, just because you have the power to do so. I end my blog saying that IPSI has given me an experience of a lifetime that I will value and cherish every second of it, every lesson I learned from it and every friend I made through it. I am sure that it will come the day that I will point to a great leader on television and say, I lived and learned with this man/woman in the Hague one summer.

By Lyn Drummond, Australia

The second day of the three day simulation was a very long one. It started just after midnight, then 2am, and 4am as negotiators were hauled from their beds to find out the latest and changing news that would affect their bid to reach major agreements on the
transition process of the mythical country, Kanrayistan. Tempers were hard to keep at bay later as tiredness took over.

In one incident role plays verged on realism as three Intelligence officers from a country with large vested interests in its neighbour Kanrayistan interrupted a high level meeting of the strategy group demanding to know why they had been expelled from their particular working group. The officers ended up in jail for a potential security breach, or not following procedure, or aggressive behaviour; it isn’t clear yet.

When the heat abated, the three issued a press release from jail asking for an explanation for their expulsion and gave solid reasons for being back in the big transition picture.

As can be seen from this scenario, the international debate on transition is fraught. Those who discuss and argue and do covert business in huddles away from the main table, are all after the same thing- the heady scent of power. Of control. Or at least as much power as they can reasonably attain. Without too much finger pointing and blame throwing.

Diplomacy is still the key to an agreement that works reasonably well, even if not all are totally satisfied. The art of diplomacy as we are learning is how to let others have it your way – without their realising it.

How to achieve the progressive transfer of power, property and legitimacy for key tasks and responsibilities so the nation in question moves forward is to be decided tomorrow with the last of the three days of agreements due to be completed.

by Ana Valeria, Bolivia

After an almost sleepless night, partially because of the reading, partially because of the geek inside anxiously awaiting 8 a.m., and surely the thought of maybe not living up to the standards of our roles…the anticipated meeting on Monday commenced.

At first we were all very suspicious of one another’s intentions, and none of us was totally aware of the intensity of the process we were to undertake. We felt a little relieved when the option to strategically meet with your partners in role arose, and from that moment on, we knew there was no going back, we became, for all purposes intended, that person that was outlined in a closed envelope the day before.

In the process of defining ourselves in the role we are developing, we have to be very careful with two main issues. First, trying to separate our personal beliefs from the beliefs of our role, and even more complex, separating own egos, (aside from the character’s one, of course), from the table of negotiations. When this is achieved, the simulation gets a true shade of reality. It will be fair to say that it is very important to define who we are as individuals, and who we are as roles, and this differentiation should be transversal to all aspects of this particular point of the IPSI experience as a whole.

We began to internalize the theory that was provided the past weeks, realizing that we had the tools to proceed in the simulation, and understanding that the trick to it all relays on combing those tools with the changing reality that is presented to us during the course of this experience.

by Ruth Murambadoro, Zimbabwe

Week four of the Hague Symposium mark the crux of the 30days in Den Haag. Monday’s short-course on negotiation came to the test in yesterday’s activities as participants had to constantly remind themselves of the role they are playing. Negotiation has been defined as an instrument of diplomacy which facilitates the process of  communication between international actors to deliberate on interests/issue with the intent of reaching a common ground. Great emphases was brought forward with regards to the do’s and don’ts in a negotiation procedure. Among these are:

• Be aware of mode swings in the negotiation process, at times people might be fighting different fights in one room. By singling out the issues you scale down the complexity of the matters at hand. In our simulation group this came up a lot, we had to address the issue of security separate from the rule of law. The majority of the group conceded that it is paramount for the case example state of Kayranistan to stabilize its military forces henceforth the ICC indictment against one of the stakeholders will impede on the progress of the negotiation.

• Single-mindedness can make other people look arrogant and stubborn. Very tough to negotiate with someone who wants things to go their way always. The best way to reach a compromise would be to take them aside and inform them of the things at stake. More so advise them on options that will  be most beneficial to their stance. At times people are arrogant because they are not aware of the alternatives. However this procedure must be handled  with care, avoid standing out as it might seem like you are discrediting the interests of the other parties. Within the simulations there are some stakeholders who played arrogant, they articulated a carrot and stick strategy to strengthen their stances. It was crucial for participants to block any opportunity of the spoilers from achieving their goals.

• Time-out helps to ease emotions and allows for re-thinking. There are moments when the deliberations were getting heated up and everyone was disagreeing about everything else that the other one is agreeing to act on. In order to regain control of the debate some stakeholders had to adjourn on an issue to debrief with their partners on the way forward. When they reconvened the crux of the debate became more soluble.

My greatest lessen of yesterday was the practically of a negotiation. It is indeed a give and take, one has to be careful of the implications of any stance before adopting it. More over there is need to make time to reflect on what happens and why. Sometimes ambivalence is necessary to reach a consensus. With that in mind it is interesting to note that social relations made outside the class set up will be distorted with the simulations of this week as some people have been assigned roles which sets them as enemies of their usual friends. Henceforth this week is very interesting, mind blowing, and yet confusing because of the challenges one has to go through to uphold the role they have at the expense of personal preferences.

by Pierre A. Ahouré, Cote d’Ivoire

The 15th day of our Symposium began with a visit to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in TheHague. We began our visit to the heart of the ICC premises under the guide of the representative of the Protocol. Having completed the check-in and security formalities, we were guided throughout the different steps of our journey, with an eye sight view over the design of the new ICC building which is expected to be completed by 2015.

Our formal meetings began with the nomination of three members of our team, to introduce us to the three speakers. First Ms Allyson Maccrery introduced our group to Mr Volker Nerlich, legal Adviser, Appeals division of the ICC Chambers. Ms Manelle Chawk introduced us to Mr Fadi El Abdellah, the spokesperson and head of Public Affairs Unit in of the ICC Registry, and lastly myself introducing the group of 54 members from 26 countries around the world with one vision learning about post-crisis peace transition, to Mr Emeric Rogier, Head, Situation Analysis section JCCD, OTP of the ICC.

In his Address, Mr Volker traced the history of the idea of an International Criminal Court which originated following the horrors of World War II. Mr Fadi El Abdallah gave us an overview of the four organs of  the ICC which are firstly, the Judiciary made up of three divisions, Appeals, Trials and the Pre-trial divisions, and secondly, the office of the prosecutor, and thirdly, the Registry, as per the Rome Statute. Mr Abdallah explained the procedures of the ICC and the role of the Registry before the Court. The Registrar provides all administrative supports to the organs of ICC, by contributing to the preparations of the defence, the victims, and the witnesses as well as the handling of sensitive matters and records, up to the detention of the prisoner. In terms of the reparations to the victim, Article 75 allows for reparations of the victim in the form of restitution, indenisation, and rehabilitation. Mr Emeric Roger, the Head of the Situation Analysis Section JCCD, OTP, then briefed us about the jurisdiction of the ICC.

During the questions and comments time, numerous issues were raised which covered the case for and against the ICC. Arguments for the ICC ranged from it being an instruments for deterrence, and human right protection. It was reported to us that one of the single issues facing the ICC may be its effect on States sovereignty, in particular national constitutions which often conflict with the Rome Statute in areas of national jurisdictions, in particular, when the constitutional powers are paramount in many States.

 by, Tina Svalina, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Dr. Valerie Rosoux opened our minds and touched our hearts through her presentation  about memory, reconciliation and memorialization. She was able to incorporate all of our ideas  into a structured discussion about the meaning, scope and limit of memory and reconciliation.  Dr. Rosoux began by addressing the two views of reconciliation–the pragmatic and the ethical. She noted that, although reconciliation may be considered the type of thing that “you know it  when you see it,” it is still important to have a working definition. As a senior fellow at USIP she  was tasked with uncovering the limits to reconciliation. Her initial response to the assignment  was that there are no limits to reconciliation. As the discussion went on it became more evident  what exactly she meant by that. The pragmatic approach of reconciliation addresses when  reconciliation is appropriate and effective to use and when it is not, while the ethical focuses  on respect for the survivors and the irreversible character of violence. Sometimes there is no  adequate answer or response for the survivors, but that doesn’t mean that reconciliation stops.  It may just mean that there is a priority to live again, rather than immediately reconcile. Among  the exhaustive list of transitional justice, peace building, and reconciliation terms we compiled,  one stood out in particular. Somewhere between acceptance, trust, memory, compromise, inclusivity, causes, circumstances, and violations stood the word respect. The previous terms,  among others were just as vital to our definition, however the term respect opened the door  to another room that we have been in before. As we look around in this room there are things  coming from the top and the bottom, as the ceiling and the floor close in on the pluralities or  perception.

Dr. Rosoux described reconciliation as a dynamic system that goes from top to bottom  and from bottom to the top, but is also influenced by outside factors. Going back to the room  analogy, the outside factor can be compared to things being pushed in through the door. Reconciliation, as noted by Dr. Rosoux can’t come solely from the outside. Things need to
grow organically within the community, and if there is resistance there can be no reconciliation for the time being no matter how many NGOs try to fit through that door and into that room. Imposing our own view of justice or need for reconciliation on a community is unfair because the humiliation experienced, wounds inflicted and futures ruined are not our own. There are legitimate reasons for resisting reconciliation.

To help us further dissect reconciliation Dr. Rosoux provided analytical tools. The three categories she provided were the structural, psychosocial and spiritual. The structural aspect includes the pragmatic and legal inter-group relationships of the conflict, the psychosocial component includes the people to people programs, and the spiritual part is the collective healing that includes the victims, perpetrators and those who lie somewhere in between. She placed the interpretations on a spectrum ranging from minimalist to maximalist, the minimalist view being synonymous with conflict management. The maximalist view is more spiritual it, is not an end goal, and becomes the being.

Next she discussed the scope of reconciliation. Respect was again mentioned, as she explained that each individual victim will have their own pace, ability and desire toward a healing process. Respect requires that each situation be addressed not only in a pragmatic way in achieving security, setting up institutions, economic partnerships, and reparation initiatives, it is also about being aware of the context that these things are happening in. In her concluding remarks Dr. Rosoux exclaimed that there is no adequate, brief or rapid answer when it comes to reconciliation. The key, she said, is to find a balance and strike when the timing is decisive. She clarified that balance doesn’t entail addressing all things equally, rather it is addressing them all effectively. The duration of reconciliation is also an important consideration because emotions, attitudes and beliefs take a long time and the perceptions of the population also evolve over time. For all of those reasons reconciliation is an open-ended process, or business that is yet to
be finished.

by Isa Bello, Nigeria

Today, the Symposium spent the day at the Special Tribunal For Lebanon (STL). The Special Court is indeed unique. It is borne out of an agreement between the Lebanese government and the United Nations, even-though that agreement was never ratified by
Lebanese lawmakers. The court is set out as one of the courts that encourages active victim participation in trials and has an incorporated standing defence team within the court structure. It is also the only International court that has included trials of absentia rules into its modus operandi, remaining both independent from the UN and Lebanon.

Although International courts are often children of necessity borne out of goodwill, the visit to the STL has made me question the legality of the court and other tribunals of its kind. It is pertinent that a legal order is not produced by an illegal or somewhat murky legal arrangement, a potential abuse of power by the Security Council in order to fulfil political objectives, or to create a mirage of effectiveness. Although the court has ruled on its legal legitimacy, (which in my opinion, it should not have had the authority to do) the Lebanese parliament has not ratified the agreement, building up a tension with the Vienna Convention. The tribunal has not managed to secure the arrest of the accused so far, a setback that does not seem to deter the court from its will to prosecute.

I was largely impressed by the STL staff, they seemed to be passionate about what they were doing, with utmost faith in the work of the court that may well have set the ball rolling for an international terrorism court. One of the speakers confirmed the disenfranchisement towards the court by some of the Lebanese populace, who have argued that crimes like the Sabra and Shatila massacre should be the main concern of the court, a crime the international community have conferred a genocide status.

by Yooree Lee, Australia

‘I’m having a cynical day today’, is what I jotted down in my notepad as I sat down to listen to those working within the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. And it soon became evident that I was not alone. The group quickly assumed a critical position, posing difficult questions to the Office of the Prosecutor speaker while raising eyebrows when responses were not satisfactory. The value of the Tribunal’s contribution to the pursuit of truth and to the finding of facts surrounding the assassination of Hariri was diminished within this mindset.

As the day resumed, skepticism coloured the discussions – formal and informal – that took place among future peacemakers: the dangers of perceived ‘selective justice’; the legitimacy of the court; the drawbacks of in absentia trials; the power politics that inevitably accompany the proceedings within a multi-player, international institution which seeks to achieve international justice. The speaker from the Defence Office added to the critical default position as he offered realist views of international justice. The Security Council was characterized as ‘king of the world’, international tribunals as ivory towers and mere instruments in global politics. He urged us not to assume international justice had any deterrent impact.

Despite such a pragmatic view however, representatives from opposite sides of the trial argued that doing nothing is not an option. Whilst they recognized that international law is plagued with problems and is frequently shaped by the will of political passions, it is a young and evolving creature. Doing nothing may be more detrimental. When asked later how he could still participate in a system that he viewed as ridden with shortcomings, the Defence Office speaker offered a reply by referring to his personal philosophy – the value of contributing to change from the inside in his own, small capacity, over continuing to criticize it from the outside.

A discussion filled with rhetorical criticisms of points already considered by scholars who have come before us, and through the prisms that we each are most comfortable with, is self- serving and produces very little results. Action, though flawed and constrained by an imperfect system, will ultimately do more good than harm. While there is no denying the value of critical thinking, to start at the point of cynicism is detrimental to reform and the potential for more meaningful considerations of how we as individuals can work within the existing system to change it for the better. With this in mind, I walked out of the Tribunal that afternoon with a new lens through which to view the international justice system and my potential role within it, healthy dose of cynicism intact.

by Karabo Rajuili, South Africa

It’s the third week of classes, and second week of tribunal site visits. On the back of visits to the International Court for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), and the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL), yesterday, visiting the Special Court for Lebanon (SCL) presented us with the opportunity to critically compare the different tribunals and the evolving character, and complexities of international justice. Although there are similarities, what is evident is that each case, and therefore tribunal, is unique, yet also builds upon experience and jurisprudence of preceding international tribunals.

Throughout the day, multi-national staff from the various divisions at the SCL gave their candid appraisals of the opportunities and limitations of the court. A number of features which make the SCL unique were discussed and explored, one being the controversial ‘trial in absentia’ provision and another being participation of victims in the SCL, which is an issue of crucial importance and a first for an international tribunal. This process is intended to grant victims the right to participate in the trial and to be represented by counsel. It has been argued that ‘victims are more likely to experience satisfaction with the criminal justice system if they perceive that their voice has been heard‘. The court received 73 applications from victims of the 14 February 2005 bomb attack, which killed popular ex-Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and 22 other people, 58 which have been approved.

However, as the frank discussions of the day would reveal, there are limitations and unresolved questions. Victims cannot directly seek compensation through the Tribunal; rather this process is deferred to national courts which could be a lengthy and cumbersome process. Furthermore, the three legal representatives are assigned will represent the 58 victims, rather than the
victims themselves having choice in representation. The provision also highlights the complexities of trying to strike a balance between common law system (no status for victims) and civil law (full rights to participate), resulting in a compromise position, where the voice of the victim in an adversarial system still sits uneasily.

Is the process without its flaws? No. However, it does raise important questions of what it is to seek justice for those who have suffered most, amidst procedural imperfections and difficult compromises. For the SCL, the test of whether victim participation is a useful innovation will only be fully realised at the conclusion of the STL’s current mandate, the insights of which should serve those of us involved in field, with greater understanding not only of the development of jurisprudence, but more importantly how best to give victims a voice in international justice mechanisms.

by Saskia Nauenberg, United States of America

The story of Sierra Leone’s rebel leader Issa Sesay left many of us conflicted: Was it fair? What sentence should he have received? Does the Special Court of Sierra Leone positively contribute to peace-building efforts in Sierra Leone? Will it help deter future crimes around the world? While lawyers make arguments one-way or the other, opinions are polarized both in Sierra Leone and the international community; many wonder if a single moral answer is within reach. So I present this dilemma to you in the blogger community by sharing a sample of some of the issues our symposium is addressing. These questions emerged on Monday after watching the film “War Don Don” and meeting with prosecutor Brenda Hollis. Issa Sesay was recruited to the RUF rebel movement as a teenager. He was not one of the main conspirators behind the conflict (Charles Taylor or Foday Sankoh). As the film described, he was enlisted under false pretenses and hopeless circumstances. Once a part of the RUF, he argued he would have been shot and killed if he tried to leave. Associates explained he was a good fighter, and rose in the ranks. Eventually he became a battlefield commander. The prosecution at the Special Court argued that under his orders and authority, violence raged throughout Sierra Leone. Mass atrocities were committed: thousands suffered the amputation of one or more limbs, tens of thousands were murdered, women and girls were raped, captured, and taken as sex slaves, and child soldiers were abducted. My description can’t adequately convey the horrors of the civil war. However, the defense claimed that Issa wasn’t linked to all these crimes. They contended that Issa’s convictions were based on crimes that had occurred by different people in different areas. As a commander, what responsibility does Issa bear?

In 2000, Foday Sankoh and 400 RUF soldiers were captured and arrested. 29-year- old Issa was elected as the interim leader by West African presidents. In this new role, Issa went against the will of the RUF and its other leaders, to end the Sierra Leone conflict and disarm the rebel movement. He worked with UN commander Daniel Opande, who later said he was “like a son”. Issa helped end the war without assuring his own amnesty, and was later picked up by the Special Court and tried for war crimes. However the film explained “a lot of people [in Sierra Leone] see Issa as a savior”. A radio program, covering the Special Court posed the question: “what kind of message does this send to other warlords?” Issa participated in peace, and got the longest sentence from the court: 52 years. The issue is further complicated when we consider how widespread the responsibility for violence was. In order to convict Issa Sesay and other leaders of the conflict, former soldiers were paid to give testimony. These individuals had committed their own atrocities, but were not held accountable due to the court’s limited mandate.

Instead they were given generous compensation for their witness testimony and sometimes relocated to first world countries. Should these war criminals be able to profit from the circumstances? The United Nations and the government of Sierra Leone spent more than $200 million on the Special Court. Meanwhile, the film concluded with statistics showing that Sierra Leone is the third poorest country in the world. After 11 years of war many people want food, clean water, health care, schools, and basic employment. International funding is complex, and money donated for one thing can’t just be used for another, but it’s important to bear in mind that millions of dollars were spent on a court that sentenced 9 people (13 were indicted but 3 died). This makes each case ever more important. Did the Special Court for Sierra Leone bring justice? What kind of justice? And justice for whom?

While I can’t answer all these questions, I believe it’s important to provoke this type of debate. One thing is for sure: IPSI participants who go on to be leaders in the field of post- conflict transitions will be challenged to reconsider and redefine what we mean when we talk about “justice”.