I am woman

The newspaper today reported that being a woman is apparently an obstacle when you want to be elected prime-minister in Australia. Julia Gillard, current prime-minister of Australia (replacing Kevin Rudd a couple of months ago) might not be elected in upcoming elections because she is a unmarried childless woman. Many man, and almost as much woman, have a problem with her not being married and not having children. Several years ago, former prime-minister of the Labour Party, Bob Hawke, claimed that you can only become Australia’s prime-minister if you are a good bloke.

Personally I have always been quite sceptical about marriage, but I am starting to soften up and thinking about… maybe… someday… in the future… getting married myself (which, besides my boyfriend, should make one particular girlfriend of mine – you know who you are – pretty happy). While I was wrapping my mind around the whole maybe-someday-getting-married thing, I read Elizabeth Gilbert’s ‘Committed’, which is about a sceptic trying to make peace with marriage as she is being forced to marry by the US government (in a way). Of course I could relate to most of what the book discussed, obviously with the most glaring exception of the being forced to marry by the government part. As I am slowly, very slowly, trying to perhaps accept the institution of marriage, the following section of the book scared me the most and made me wonder (again) why any woman would want to marry anyone ever:

“To get anywhere close to unravelling this subject – women and marriage – we have to start with the cold, ugly fact that marriage does not benefit women as much as it benefits men. I did not invent this fact, and I don’t like saying it, but it’s a sad truth, backed up by study after study. By contrast, marriage as an institution has always been terrifically beneficial for men. If you are a man, say the actuarial charts, the smartest decision you can possibly make for yourself – assuming that you would like to lead a long, happy, healthy, prosperous existence – is to get married. Married men perform dazzlingly better in life than single men. Married men live longer than single men, married men accumulate more wealth than single men; married men excel at their careers above single men; married men are far less likely to die a violent death than single men; married men report themselves to be much happier than single men; and married men suffer less from alcoholism, drug addiction, and depression than do single men. ‘A system could not well have been devised more studiously hostile to human happiness than marriage,’ wrote Percy Bysshe Shelley in 1813, but he was dead wrong, or at least with regard to male human happiness. There doesn’t seem to be anything, statistically speaking, that a man does not gain by getting married. Dishearteningly, the reverse is not true. Modern married women do not fare better in life than their single counterparts. Married women in America do not live longer than single women; married women do not accumulate as much wealth as single women (you take a 7 percent pay cut, on average, just for getting hitched); married women do not thrive in their careers to the extent single women do; married women are significantly less healthy than single women; married women are more likely to suffer from depression than single women; and married women are more likely to die a violent death than single women – usually at the hands of a husband, which raises the grim reality that, statistically speaking, the most dangerous person in the average woman’s life is her own man. All this adds up to what puzzled sociologists call the 'Marriage Benefit Imbalance' – a tidy name for an almost freakishly doleful conclusion: that woman generally lose in the exchange of marriage vows, while men win big.” (pp. 166-167)

Yet, with all benefits single women enjoy that their married counterparts have to life without, they still cannot become prime-minister… apparently. Should Julia Gillard therefore get married and, according to the statistics, lead a miserable life so she can be elected prime-minister? Why should she, or any woman for that matter, have to make a choice like that? Why does it even matter whether she is married or not, and has children or not? Shouldn’t is be much much more important whether she is any good at her job or not?

It almost makes you want to be a man. I should emphasize the word ‘almost’ in that sentence because, although it may be much easier to be a man (besides apparently benefiting more from marriage and more often than not earning more money, there are moments when I would love to be able to pee while standing), I absolutely love being a woman and you couldn’t pay me enough to switch to the other sex.

I am woman, hear me roar!

No more waiting!

The stressful days of nervously waiting are over! I received the liberating news that I got an 8 (out of 10) for my thesis. I am probably as much happy as I am surprised (apparently my boyfriend already knew I was going to get an 8, and my dad predicted it as well, but I was definitely not so sure!). Mostly I am just relieved the waiting is over, and that I apparently did a pretty good job. Tomorrow I will be baking celebratory cupcakes!

Doubt is not a pleasant state of mind

Do you know that feeling of doubt that you get the minute you hand in a paper, turn in the answers to an exam, or mail a letter of application for that job you really want? I suppose this has to do with the fact that it is out of your hands now, you cannot change anything anymore, it's final (and for perfectionists like myself, this is down right terrifying!). Ever since I have handed in the final version of my thesis, I have had all kinds of doubts: Shouldn't I have gone with a different title? Does the conclusion really say what I want it to say? There aren't any spelling mistakes in there anymore, are there? Did I articulate my arguments clearly enough so that they make the point I want them to make? For almost a week now I have been in this rather unpleasent state of mind, which is only made worse by visions of my supervisor laughing out loud while judging my thesis, and using a big red pen to cross out entire sections of it (which, I must say, is not at all fair to my supervisor, since she has been nothing but kind and supportive). So I must admit, I am going a bit insane while waiting to hear what my supervisor's final judgment will be.

My thesis, by the way, is titled 'Complementarity in the situation of Uganda. Is Uganda unwilling to genuinely prosecute the leaders of the LRA?'. It discusses the principle of complementarity, which is one of the founding principles of the International Criminal Court ('ICC'). This principle regulates the relationship between the ICC and national courts; it provides that the ICC may only assume jurisdiction over a case when national judicial systems are not willing or able to genuinely investigate or prosecute that case themselves. In my thesis, I focussed on the situation of Uganda in particular and researched the question whether it is willing to genuinely prosecute the leaders of the Lord's Resistance Army ('LRA') or whether it intends to shield them from criminal responsibility by carrying out sham trials.

The LRA is a rebel movement that has been terrorizing the people of Northern Uganda for more than two decades. Over the years they have also become active in Southern Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo ('DRC'), and the Central African Republic. Although the governments of Uganda and the DRC would like us to believe that the LRA is no longer a serious threat, a recent attack in the DRC proves them wrong. In December 2009, LRA rebels brutally killed at least 231 civilians (including at least 13 women and 23 children, the youngest a 3-year-old girl who was burned to death) and abducted 250 others (including at least 80 children) during a four-day rampage in a northeastern area of the DRC (see 'Trail of Death: LRA Atrocities in Northeastern Congo', a report by Human Rights Watch based on a fact-finding mission in the area in February 2010).

The President of Uganda, Museveni, referred the situation regarding the LRA to the ICC in 2003, since his government had not been able to deal with the rebel group itself. The Chief Prosecutor of the ICC decided to open an investigation into the situation in 2004 and a year later petitioned the Court (Pre-Trail Chamber II) to issue warrants of arrest for several leaders of the LRA, which were issued soon thereafter. Apparantly this made the LRA finally willing to enter into peace negotiations with the Ugandan Government, something they had always resisted before. The Juba talks, named after the Sudanese city in which they were held, commenced in July 2006 under the mediation of the Government of Southern Sudan. The arrest warrants of the ICC soon proved to be a main point of contention, as the LRA declared itself absolutely unwilling to sign a peace agreement as long as these warrants remained in effect. The Government of Uganda, however, would not request the ICC to withdraw its warrants until a peace agreement is signed (and even then, the warrants would not necessarily be withdrawn, since only the ICC itself can make this happen). Nonetheless, on 29 June 2007 an agreement, the Agreement on Accountability and Reconciliation, was reached (which unfortunately remains unsigned until this day). Almost a year later, after the Juba talks had been reopened, an annexure to the agreement was agreed upon (which, strangly enough, did receive the parties' signatures). This annexure provided, among other things, for the establishment of a special division of the High Court of Uganda for the prosecution of persons who are alleged to have committed serious crimes during the conflict. It is suggested that those involved in the planning of attacks, such as the leaders who were indicted by the ICC, will be tried by this division of the High Court whereas other rebels who have committed less serious offences may receive amnesty (under the 2000 Amnesty Act) or will be dealt with by means of so-called 'alternative justice mechanisms'. Why, if Uganda intends to formally prosecute the leaders of the LRA and has even established a special division of the High Court to this end, did I research the question whether Uganda is unwilling to genuinely prosecute these leaders?

The negotiated agreement introduces a regime of alternative penalties and sanctions, which will also be applicable to the LRA leaders. However, it is nowhere explained what such alternative penalties might be. It is indicated, though, that they will promote reconciliation and rehabilitation and shall take into account a person's admissions or other cooperation with proceedings. Therefore, it appears that alternative sanctions are likely to be lighter than regular sanctions. This raises the question whether Uganda may be intending to carry out sham proceedings in order to shield the leaders of the LRA from criminal responsibility. The Statute of the ICC provides that if a state shields perpetrators in such a manner, it is unwilling to undertake genuine proceedings and the ICC may exercise its jurisdiction over the case in question. However, I found that Uganda might actually not be so unwilling.

Yes, one could argue that since Uganda itself referred the case to the ICC, it was never willing to deal with it itself and always preferred the Court to take over. However, it could also be argued that Uganda made this referral on false assumptions. The Government of Uganda felt it needed help with the situation concerning the LRA, because the LRA was not within its jurisdiction (originally they were operating out of Sudan, but now they appear to be hiding out in the Central African Republic) and it has never been able to arrest the leaders. However, the ICC is in no better position to arrest them. The ICC has no police force of its own and is therefore dependent upon states parties to effectuate its arrest warrants. Uganda has over the years made various serious attempts to apprehend the LRA leaders and continues to do so. Also, as I have said, a special division of the High Court is being established for their prosecution. Furthermore, the Ugandan Parliament passed the 2006 ICC Bill, which enables Ugandan courts to try, convict, and sentence individuals who have committed ICC crimes (genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes). The 2000 Amnesty Act has also been amended to create the possibility of excluding the LRA leaders from being granted amnesty. I believe such developments are indicative of Uganda's willingness to genuinely prosecute the leaders of the LRA. As for the regime of alternative sanctions created by the peace agreement, Ugandan law provides for heavier sentences (such as the death penalty) than the sentencing regime of the ICC, and the Consitution of Uganda determines that the courts shall be independent and shall not be subject to the control or direction of any person or authority. Therefore, the judges of the Ugandan High Court should base their judgments on the current sentencing regime, not on the regime of alternative sanctions provided for by the peace agreement. I feel we should trust these judges to act independently and allow Uganda to prosecute the leaders of the LRA. To do this, would be in accordance with the principle of complementarity.

I conclude my thesis by discussing how the case against the LRA leaders could be transferred from the ICC to the judicial system of Uganda and what the ICC Prosecutor thereafter can do to regain control over the case if it becomes evident that Uganda is trying to shield the leaders after all.
(Interested in reading my thesis? Click here)

Doing this research has been pretty interesting and I must admit I might actually be kind of proud of the finishing product (dispite all of my doubts). All that is left for me to do now, is to nervously await an email from my supervisor telling me she has come to a conclusion as to the grading of my thesis.

"Doubt is not a pleasant state of mind, but certainty is absurd." --Voltaire

Welcome

Welcome to my blog!

Watch me explore, dream, and discover as I try to figure out what I want to do after graduating law school.

I suppose with this blog I will be exploring the possibility of writing (I've always been interested in journalism). Although I have no clue whether I'll be any good at it, I will be giving it a try anywhy, because... well, why not?! What will I be writing about? Whatever I happen to find interesting at that time. Why in English? So I can keep practising, and hopefully improving, my writing skills in English (but I suppose when it would be more appropriate, or just easier, I will switch to Dutch).

Enjoy! (hopefully)