一个足以置之不理争论.docVIP

An argument worth avoiding一个足以置之不理的争论Arguing over the legal meaning of aggression could undermine the ICC’s achievements针对侵略行为法律定义的争辩或将抹杀国际刑事法院的功绩May 27th 2010 | From The Economist print editionWHEN the International Criminal Court staggered into existence eight years ago, many people thought it was unlikely to do much good, and others saw it as a menace. The latter camp included George Bush, who denounced it as a “foreign court” where “our troops and officials” would be in danger of malicious prosecution. The United States devoted much diplomatic energy to undermining the court and demanding total immunity for Americans.八年前，国际刑事法院艰难问世，当时许多人对其能否行善还是疑虑有加，更有一些人直接将其视为一大祸端。后者所居的阵营就包括乔治布什，他恶批国际刑事法院为“异国法院”，担心美国军队及官员遭受其恶意指控。美国可谓做足外交功课来干扰国际刑事法院的运作，并希望美国公民能得到彻底的赦免。Set against these dire expectations, the court has not done too badly. It has laid bare some of the facts about the world’s most dreadful wars. The most controversial of its 13 indictments has been that of Omar al-Bashir, the president of Sudan, who was held responsible for the suffering in Darfur. Some people who knew Sudan feared that an enraged Mr Bashir would perpetrate fresh atrocities. But these worries have not been borne out. The court’s biggest achievement, though, is the fact that most of the world (111 countries and rising) is committed to the idea that certain crimes should never go unpunished. This creates a sort of moral momentum which influences non-members, too—including the United States.相比那些骇人的期待而言，该法院的行为绝不至糟糕至极。它将那些全球最令人发指的战争真相晓诸天下。它所提及的13项指控中最富争议的便是针对苏丹总统奥马尔·阿尔·巴希尔的指控，控诉其对发生在达尔富尔的灾难负有罪责。了解苏丹的人不免担心巴希尔嗔怒之下又会新生恶端。但此番忧虑并未应验。然而，该法院的最大贡献在于发现一个真相，真相披露有超过111个国家的民众认为决不能让某些罪行任其逍遥。对于包括美国在内的非成员国而言，这会滋生一种道德上的动机。So it seems a pity that a review of the court’s workings, due to open in Uganda on May 31st, will in all probability get bogged down in a destructive argument (see article). That dispute concerns the definition of aggression, which is one of the misdeeds (along with genocide, war cr