Image for The Great
Go Back to the event page

Please upgrade to a browser that supports HTML5 audio or install Flash.

Audio MP3 Download Podcast

Duration: 48:02



Kal Raustiala 0:04

Okay, good afternoon, everyone or good evening. So I'm Kal Raustiala, Director of the Burkle Center. It's a great pleasure to have you here for our annual Bernard Brodie Lecture on the Conditions of Peace. So we have offered this lecture for over four decades, and had over those years a really interesting and varied group of speakers. But I'm not sure we have ever had a prosecutor. So this is a first for us. And I'm really excited about it. So, Luis Moreno Ocampo, our speaker was in "1985", the deputy prosecutor in the Junta trial in Argentina. If you have seen the film, Argentina 1985, which I recommend on Amazon, you have seen him depicted in that landmark trial, which really was a watershed, not only for Argentina, but also for human rights, litigation, and for accountability around the world. So a really big moment. After many years of other practice, Luis went on to become the first prosecutor at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, first Chief Prosecutor in 2003. He and I first encountered each other right around that time, I think. He was just starting out in that role, and he had a very successful run. We'll talk about that a little bit. He prosecuted many different heads of state and others around the world. It was obviously a groundbreaking role, groundbreaking institution. This year, earlier this academic year, he published his book, which I think he has a copy of over there. Luis, maybe you can hold that up. "War and Justice in the 21st Century: A Case Study on the International Criminal Court and Its Relationship With the War on Terror". And that book kind of accounts for his period of time as prosecutor, his thoughts around the broader issues of law justice. I highly recommend it. Currently, Luis, in addition to various kinds of forms of legal practice, is teaching at USC, but not at the law school, in the School of Cinematic Arts. And he's very interested in the role in how film and narrative and law all intersect. So a really amazing career and amazing person that I've gotten to know over the years. Really happy to have him, so please join me in welcoming Luis Moreno Ocampo.

Luis Moreno Ocampo 2:40

Thank you very much for this conversation. I was trying to, I just came over this morning from Brazil. And I had my conversation prepared, thinking there was a lawyer but who are lawyer here? There are no lawyers here. There are not many lawyers. You are good people, normal people focused on peace. That's great. So know, in fact, you are needed, you will need to make peace in this world. Because wars are popular. Wars are popular. Putin is more popular now than before. In this country, presidents are popular when they, when they propose increase on budget for defense. It's popular. So that's a problem. A war is not a matter of just a matter of legal issues. There are some legal issues involved, but basically, it's a matter of why people support it. How can we change that? That's why as I said, I am teaching after I finished my job in the International Criminal Court in the Hague. I went to Harvard because I was trying to write this book trying to understand what I did. Then I realized well, but it's not about the lawyers. Example - the word Holocaust means calamity. Capital letter meaning extermination of Jewish community in Europe by the Nazi. That is not the consequence of the Nuremberg trial. It is a consequence of the movie about the Nuremberg trial. The first Nuremberg was in 1945. There were 12 until 1948. And nothing happened. No change. The narrative created by a movie from Spencer Tracy, Judy Garland, Marlene Dietrich the main actors those days, that transformed the conversation. And then Steven Spielberg has said, his father, his parents talk about the great marvel. 'Holocaust' started in December of '61, when "Judgement at Nuremberg" premiere in Berlin, and the New York Times start to use it, and became in stone when Meryl Streep in 1978 did the series, TV series called Holocaust. So that's why I am teaching at USC Cinematic Arts. And now I'm involved in a movie about my own work. That may mean I will comment on that because of the impact. I came from Brazil, because in Brazil, they want to watch the movie. Because in Brazil, they never investigated on dictators. And then they want to understand and enjoy a movie where dictators are persecuted. It is interesting. Because January 8 in Brasilia is like a copy of January 6, 2020 In Washington. Even some of the characters are connected. Bannon is most. So that's why I will try to present to you a very light version of what I'm trying to say, starting with a story of the daughter of a friend of mine. She told her mother, 'Mummy, that is so old. It's so 2010.' That's what she say. And the problem is she's right. Things are changing so fast. We don't realize. I was laughing when she said 2010. I'm 70. So 2010 is nothing for me, yesterday. But I was preparing a class on how movies present media, and I were watching a series called "Newsroom" in HBO. "Newsroom", which again, is 2012. 2012. Not 2010. 2012. It's so old. lt's so old, not just the technology. They use Blackberry.Tthey have no, there are no iPhones. And it's shocking now see no iPhone, so normal, this type of cells. But in particular, the media dynamic. There are journalists fighting for the truth and thinking they will change the government with that. And of course, if you follow the finding of the Dominion case against Fox, Fox people knew they were lying. They don't care. So media is changing dramatically and the idea we can -

Should I start again? Okay. Okay. So and the problem is we celebrate technological innovation. But we dismiss institutional change. And that is the topic I was trying to present to you very simple, very clear how legal systems define our interaction. Sometimes lawyer folks details will give you the big, big picture how the legal system defined our interaction. At the national level in the US, the 18th century Constitution is still an innovative model, creating a legal system with checks and balances still working, still working. In my country, in Argentina, we copycat. We copy and paste this Constitution. Copy it almost the same in 1853. But between 1930 and 1983, for 50 years, no elected government could end its term. There was a coup d'etat. So even the Constitution was the same and the the system was working very differently. And that was a clear contrast between a mature democracy like in US and a country with no no clarity and no consistency between its norms and its reality. But today it's different. As I'd say before. January 6 is in the US. January 6 was here. And still it's not just who was involved in the events or who participate in the crimes. There are many political leaders in the US supporting the idea. And interestingly, people doing that, they believe they are supporting democracy. They are storming the Congress to support democracy. So something is happening. And lawyers are not taking care of it. We lawyers are not adjusting, we are still keeping the rules. And that's one issue, national systems. National system exist. But we are not improving them. We are not reforming them to understand why people became so upset. Why people mobilize themself to affect the Constitution, the Congress. In Brazil, and in what did the same, and you see you can follow also in Israel, there are people mobilizing to protect the Supreme Court. Boris Johnson in UK was criticized in the court. So it's not just one country problem, something is happening. That the promise of a global community built on the internet is transforming into tribes, connected by internet. And in isolation, because basically, people who believe that the election was stolen in 2020, they don't read or listen the different opinions. That's why they are consistent. Many of them still believe that and they don't change. And it's that the new communication systems allowing them to just select exactly. In the past, they all have the media, they all have the radio and TV, decide the news and you have to read. You can change the newspaper. But information was there and there was this idea you have to present the facts. All is gone, all is gone. People select not just the media, select the news they want to see and watch. All accurate for them. So that my point we have the national systems, but we are not understanding how they're changing. The other point connected with that is the international legal system. There are no existing, there's not an institution, who can manage today, the Ukrainian conflict. President Putin committed an aggression crime. However, there is no institution who can deal with it because normally, the organization in charge of peace and security in the world is the UN Security Council. However, the UN Security Council cannot manage conflicts with permanent members because the permanent members like Russia, US, China, France and UK have veto power, so they can stop it and control it. So by legal design, no institution can control US, Russia, China, France and UK. That's it. And the other thing you have is International Criminal Court, the court I was involved. That was very active. The court cannot investigate aggression crime, because it states that, not like that US put pressure on France and UK and they managed to avoid the possibility to investigate aggression and crime, would you define it? But however, they got already issue an indictment against President Putin. And that's new. That's the part of the evolution. The world is evolving slowly, very slowly not compared with the internet, but it's evolving. But and that's why, today, we have an International Criminal Court. Ukraine accepted the court intervention. Therefore, the court could investigate the war crimes against humanity or genocide, and already indicted President Putin, but there's no local police. So there's no FBI guy who will ring the bell of this person putting you under arrest. That will not happen. So what the meaning of that? First meaning is meaning this man is an international criminal. He committed international crime or is allegedly and is suspect. He should be prosecuted, should be indicted, should be on trial. That's the first point. So there are meaning. We understand this is wrong. In terms of impact then depends on how the states react. The International Criminal Court is like imagine the US with no White House, no FBI, no Congress, and a prosecutor in Washington, and a court in Washington. And when they investigate the governor of Oklahoma, and if they indict him, the other states, California, Minnesota, they had to decide what to do or how to do it. So the indictment became a restriction to the person indicted, who have planned to travel. Could see it's like a lion bleeding, because he's hurt and has to see how to manage that. Ignore it, attack the court, say we don't care, make alliances. And the states who are members of the treaty have to have to decide how these restrictions operate on them. So that's just what we have. Is it enough? No, it's not enough. How to change? Cannot produce a beautiful legal design for the world because no one will vote for it. So it's not a matter of legal design, it's a matter where it's complicated. And it was a miracle they adopt the Roman Statute and create an International Criminal Court, but it will not be a similar miracle today, to have a global system to control this type of problems. So, in fact, the revolution today is to harmonize. And that's it was my the point I was trying to make in this conversation. Because for instance, basically Putin committed a crime. Ukraine has the right to defend itself. US has the legal right to defend itself also, to defend Ukraine, to provide weapons. That's all legal, legal. Putin is illegal. The rest is illegal. The problem is this legal solution and the ICC in that properly President Putin will not transform from today's situation. And maybe they weren't neither. That's a problem. The war, I don't know if Ukraine can win the war. I don't know what happened if Putin tried to use nuclear weapons. So we had the verge of a nuclear war in Europe. So the problem for US, there are different voices. Some of them say no, no, you have to defeat. First, corner Russia Army and then make a deal. Or the others, look, don't care. Ukrainians are affecting Russia, let them reduce Russia by what is good for us. China, interestingly, propose, I don't know who read the China proposal to end Ukrainian war? Not no one, because you can, it's difficult to find them, to find it. I don't, I am not - I'd have to check again. But I did not find it in the New York Times or on the Washington Post, or The Wall Street Journal did not. And however, the first point of the China proposal is to respect Ukrainian sovereignty, because for China, sovereignty is very important. And that's why Macron, the French president went to China. We are divided and China is a big enemy for US, therefore, no we don't have support China. And it's not bad for us that Russia is - it reduce it. So all this is legal, still legal. Except Putin, all the rest are legal. So that's why we need people, no lawyer here, trying to see how what we can do on that understanding the importance to transform our educational system. And we need them because also we need to integrate concepts because US has the right not to make a deal with Ukraine. It's dangerous, very dangerous, and there are people dying in Ukraine, but it's still legal. So my point is, my point I don't know if I think it's enough for you today, is we can end this. There's a British professor, Michael Howard, he died already. But he wrote a beautiful book called "The Invasion of Peace". He explained for 5000 years, peace was just time between war and war. The idea of a permanent peace started two centuries ago and to be achievable by diplomatic efforts. And it's still in process, not reality. But probably your age, you live in permanent war, also. Now the US, it was in permanent, it was at war since 2001 with Afghanistan, and then 2003 with Iraq. Still bad, still not, still bad. It still is interesting now. US lost the Afghanistan war, US launched the Iraq War. Launched with the Iraq War with no, on wrong assumptions. And still we propose, US propose a war to manage conflict. So there is something wrong here. And that's why we need people, more experts coming to debate that because this place is university has to produce new ideas, new forms, to manage the complex. That was Michael Howard's proposal. The only way to achieve global peace is to do something similar what we did at the national level. At the national level, yes there was a mess and then you create institution who managed to control violence. And you will evolve too. I don't know if you know that until, until the 19th century, the criminal justice system in the US was exclusively state. There was no federal criminal justice system. FBI was created in 1907 and then gearing up prosecutors and judges on the topic. So that was an evolution. Why? Because you have crimes that states California, Connecticut, cannot deal with them alone. So you're a pragmatic country. You will develop your institutions to at the federal level to control all the type of crimes including woman traffic or organized crime, Al Capone. Al Capone was one of the first persons that FBI first work and then the Treasury. So US in its own history show the pragmatism to manage this conflict. For me, what's happening that was my experience at the ICC. I was in mitigate their full conflict and legal advisors a big country in Europe come to my office as a prosecutor. You, your single agenda is affecting our country agenda. And our agenda include genocide, we don't like genocide, therefore, but is not the only problem. We need oil from Sudan. We need to keep our relation with with China. We need to have good relations with Arab world. So you, your single agenda are crossing our entire agenda. And I say to him, look, you told me if there's a genocide you go ahead and close everyone. Well, if the judges confirm your point, we'll be okay. And that's happened. So and then I got to remember the US Ambassador Bush, President Bush ambassador was very clever guy. And he told me please, we met in Chicago before I decided to indict or not President Bashir and he happened to me why was so bad idea. Because he will do negotiations and if I indict Bashir, will be difficult for him to negotiate with Bashir. So as a prosecutor, I had these types of dilemmas. Okay. Should I follow my mandate and indict this person because I have the evidence but how that will help as a statehood that normally has support telling me not not to do it. What do you think? Idea who should say okay, well, hey, prosecutor, prosecute Bashir. Raise your hands. Who of you believe in these conditions that state telling you not doing, that Bashir will be complicated negotiation for peace, will be affected the country, and don't do it. Who say do it again? Do it prosecutor, raise your hands. Who say, no? You? Who else? No? No? Okay. So I will say, Okay, I am, if I don't, if I do it, apparently it will be a mess. If I don't do it, it will be a different mess because I'm not doing my job. And my office has the evidence. And if it's a collapse of my office, who I might use it to build it, so I did it. I went with an indictment. And, and that's my point I was trying to make. Richard Williamson, the Bush ambassador, took advantage of it. And he explained in a party meeting. Yes, I'm against ICC, I don't like the ICC. I told the Ocampo not to do it, it will complicate my life. But when he did it, I took advantage of it. I put pressure on Bashir to obtain my negotiation, use in the real world. And in fact, that was also Obama policy. Obama policy was to take advantage of the arrest warrant to pressure on on Bashir to obtain support for the war on terror and to obtain independent results. So I'm not sure if this is a perfect solution, but it's a possible solution. Okay. Because what happened is, as a matter had been to me, not do it not do your job, I had to do it. If you have a in a corner traffic light with the red, the red on and the green on. So what you do, and lawyers are playing all the relevant board and the racing board now with the race, you had to stop. And say no, no, the green arrow, you go ahead you have it with car. So is that red or green? It has how you had to harmonize two opposite mandates. And that is the world we live in. We live in a world of multiple nominal systems with different mandates. Is it not chaos? It's that complexity. And the problems of all the experts is to reduce complexity. But also, that's why maybe I feel in movies, the role of the investigator for me, though. In this case, in this case, Argentina in the Junta trial when I was a prosecutor. My job was to collect the evidence to convict the generals. But also, I realize many people in my country did not believe on that, including my own mother. I'm a failure. I win, but I never could convince my mother that General Videla was wrong. General Videla for her was a nice man. My grandfather was a general. So my mother loved generals. And she was in church with him. So she, she was feeling oh no Luis, you're wrong, he's a good man. So I never got to go meet my mother. So I was thinking, okay, did they get my mother convinced and maybe that they would win out of the court. But my mother changed her mind as soon as the first witness came. She is a woman who was abducted by the police suspected of something. And she got pregnant. And then she got together baby, handcuffed, blinded in the police car. My mother heard about that she changed her mind. But what's happened in 10 days, but it's soon. But I keep working on it. And the more we also show my work with a journalist who was normally defending the dictatorship. And that's why I was a deputy prosecutor. My boss, hate this journalists. We never heard that. And I discussed with him. Do you have evidence against him? No. Okay, then we'll go to him because he was representing dictatorship, now it is time to represent us and convince his own, the people who follow him to understand us. And that worked. That was my job with ICC, those days and our rights. I was trying to harmonize different positions. But the funny thing that why, especially for lawyers. 38 year later, say a year later, a director and a producer decided to do a movie about this. And suddenly, a movie transformed this trial in something of today. In my country, there were 1 million people watching the movie in the movie in the theaters, in particular the young generation. So the movie cross time, reaching the new generations and space. I was in Brazil, I was in Chile invited because the movie. I was teaching at Harvard, and students say to me, you have no idea how relevant was your movie. In my country and your movie I saw it, yes, the movie is so relevant. So that's why my final word following instruction with my boss here as she instructed. My final words is each of us has a role. No one is strong enough to do it alone. No one is so weak, can't help. Each of us has a role. The director of the movies transform this game, impacting, and I want to think is Kal is proposing here a conversation all of us to see what we can do. Even, we're not going to change the world, but you can keep insisting. If we stop, we fail. We lose. My recommendation, keep insisting. Thank you for coming here.

Kal Raustiala 30:53

Thank you, Luis. Okay, so we're gonna try without microphones, because there's obviously a little bit of feedback, but I think everyone can hear us. Okay, so, so great. So Luis, and I will, we'll have a little conversation. We do have time for some questions, please. And I'll open it up to all of you in a moment. So there's so many things to ask you about. But maybe we could start. You sort of ended with a Junta trial. What did you take away? I mean, you sort of pointed at some big lessons. But when you ended that trial, what did you feel like the most important lesson was or what, you know, how did you, how did you assess it at the time? Now, obviously, with hindsight, it's a little different.

Luis Moreno Ocampo 31:36

No, but the Junta trial, in fact, like not the movie was debated during a presidential campaign. In 1983, the end of the dictatorship was a campaign. And one of the candidates proposed to investigate the other guys. And he said it needed to understand what happened and also to end coup d'etat in our country and dictatorships. Yeah, the other caveat from the majority party, we say no, cannot do it legally. So the rebel won, and in fact, this happened. And the dictatorship, there was some kind of new routines, routines. But people mobilize to defend democracy and stop it. So I think obviously, the biggest outcome was many things. But one important is in terms of big picture, democracy was consolidated. And now that was the movie about the trial. This impact is coming back for the period was 20. And not just in Argentina and Brazil. It's funny, because in Brazil, the journal asked me, how can control our army people in Brazil, when we have no trials, and error? In fact, army people are easy, because there is instructions for the good commander. And that's it. The problem is not the army people. The problem is the elite. If elite is committed with a coup d'etat, you have a problem. And yes, and away from me, I'm worried in this country, when I see so many senators supporting January 6. That for me is insane. He knows about, they are not criminals, I understand, but supporting January 6?

Kal Raustiala 33:20

So at the time, did you think that it did it more - you and everyone else around you, did you think that the democracy that you had ushered in or helped usher in was going to stick or were people worried that it was going to slide?

Luis Moreno Ocampo 33:35

Well, you know, the, the prosecutor invited me to help him. And I thought, I said look, I like to do it, but I never did a case in my life. So you have to be better, he said to me, because we have to invent something different. If we do in a normal way, you cannot do it. So I have to rationalize the offer. I think, yeah, I should do it. But I was thinking that okay. Doing democracy, the army will not kill me. And if there's a new coup d'etat, I had to escape. So that was my feeling. But so I will surely we are not going to die. But you should do it. You got to know. If there is an opportunity, you do it. Sure. Sure. Well, you would do it.

Kal Raustiala 34:17

Okay, so let's jump to the International Criminal Court. So when you were offered that position, first of all, what did you expect would happen initially in the court, and did your expectations match what you saw? So in other words, you know, like some people thought the International Criminal Court when it was first created, maybe there would be no cases? Yeah, maybe nothing would happen. The court would just sit there, there would be no real results. That wasn't the case. But what did you expect going in?

Luis Moreno Ocampo 34:45

Well, that was going on. I was teaching at Harvard. In those days. I was a visiting professor at Harvard. And he called me told me, Luis it is a great honor to be the prosecutor of the ICC, the first one, but you should reject the offer. Why? Because without the US support, you could not investigate crimes, you cannot arrest people. So as a consequence, you will be nine years in The Hague doing nothing. And it will be a shame for you. That was the comment. And for me it was intriguing, I have a friend of mine who was working in the Bush administration. He told me, Luis, I can help you to coordinate effort. I said no problem.

Kal Raustiala 35:26

Meaning like, behind the scenes coordination.

Luis Moreno Ocampo 35:28

Yeah, because I was understanding what happened. I was I was always in the US. I was invited by US many times. So I had good relations with the US. I don't know how they're going to admit it. But we can all agree. So it's funny. One friend of mine, I don't know where you are but they were really active, three times happened the same to me. I still have a person saying look, I'm a friend of the new Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, and at that moment, when I mentioned these words, this person, let me talk about. A Nigeria advisor told me, Luis, we know you, you probably would do a good job. And that's bad for us. We don't like the court. So that was the situation. So I knew that I had to do it from them. I had to see how to mobilize it. I think that's why I had to be creative. The biggest fear in my time was where to go. Because that was a new member. The country who won? No, it's a problematic. You're hard to hear.

Kal Raustiala 36:35

I know. But the microphones are causing so many problems. Yeah. I think it's off.

Luis Moreno Ocampo 36:43

Hello, hello No. I know. Yes. Yeah, the better. Okay. Yeah, we got to get there wasn't with me. No, no, we I will give you mine.

Kal Raustiala 37:00

I'm good, I'm loud.

Luis Moreno Ocampo 37:03

Okay. So basically, I realize US will not support. So I need to invent new mechanism. And then for instance, you know, to reduce the fear of the prosecutor, interfering with sovereign state with no merit. I use this method to invite state to refer the situation. So I found my cases first. And the invitation of the personnel in Uganda and in Congo, I interact with states to do that. So I manage and we did it.

Kal Raustiala 37:33

And along the way did you expect that the United States would want to join was that it? Was that a hope within the office?

Luis Moreno Ocampo 37:40

Look if I will believe this part of my speech, but if you understand US, never will sign the treaty. It's a senator you had Jesse Helms who say, very clear, is the US people, the US government and God, nothing between you, God, and US government. And Nuremberg, was not led by US. Churchill and Roosevelt agreed to just execute the Nazis was calling the champion of trials, not because Stalin was a liberal guy, but Stalin understood the communication power of trials. He killed all his comrades in the communist revolution, though in the Moscow trials, he tortured them, confessed, prosecuted, executed. So he wanted the same. So it's funny that's why when people, when lawyers discuss legal issue here their reality is the three leaders that decided Churchill and Roosevelt were against trying to execute Stalin for absolutely wrong reason were the ones promoting. After they made the political decision without Robert Jackson, a great brilliant man, former Attorney General Roosevelt, Supreme Court judge, he made the legal work and did a very good job. But the political decision was crazy. And then he was lobbied the same. I was the for US lawyer. US was thinking there was a PR operation great Yugoslavia tribunal. So because US defend itself with the army and then the US don't like in mitigation of their army. And that's why you have lawyers in the US are confused sometimes. They've been saying US will join. No, if the US joins, it's to control everything that to protect its own friends. So it's not a good idea that way. For me, the pragmatic idea is, let the US people think about its army fine, but you have to understand let the context to grow and to be better. That is for me the permanent solution.

Kal Raustiala 39:55

You mentioned Justice Jackson when he was appointed to this role. He got a lot have heat from other Supreme Court justices. Why are you doing this? Yeah, this is a total waste of time. Why are you going to Nuremberg? And of course, it turned out to be the thing that he's in many ways most famous for, and was a landmark. But that was not the view within most of the, certainly of the Supreme Court, but also the legal elite in the United States did not supported at all. Okay, so let's talk a little more. I want to make sure there's time for audience questions, but I think I'm good. In terms of in the time since the International Criminal Court was created, and you started, there were predecessor courts. We talked about Nuremberg, there were some Rwanda, Yugoslavia. There's also more regional courts now that have been created. Do you think there's still an important scope for the ICC? Do you think it's better to have a series of regional courts that are closer to the ground?

Luis Moreno Ocampo 40:48

Regional Court? Blah, blah, there's no Regional Court? There's none, 0. There's 0 regional court. There's no criminal court.

Kal Raustiala 40:56

Do you think we should have more courts that are lower, or lower down and in the, rather than being fully global? An African Court, as some people have talked about?

Luis Moreno Ocampo 41:05

I mean, I remember something Jackson say something very important. Jackson say the importance of creating individual responsibility is the only option between war and prevention. The only option is to investigate individuals. And I think that's the concept. That's why it is awful the internationalization people don't understand more, the legal system. All this blah, blah, about regional the court in Africa is blah, blah, to avoid the the indictment of African leaders. That's it. But because it's so complicated, confused. Let me give you an example to understand how much more interesting in the real conversation like with the academic debate. I remember, in the meeting, I met the president of Tanzania, who told me please, you have to open a case in Kenya. Because if you don't open a case in Kenya will be a new massacre in the next elections, and 1 million refugees, and Kenya will collapse. And if Kenya collapse, Tanzania collapse. For me it's self defense. Okay. Then, later, we have an indictment. And the goal of Kenya was trying to use the African Union to attack me, basically. And then I called Kofi Annan, who was a former UN Secretary-General who was to mediate on the Kenyan conflict. I said Kofi I read about this, can you call the Tanzanian President who was supporting to defend us in the African Union. The ones I did it already, I met in Davos, Tanzania President is done. He would protect us. Okay. Then I will follow the news. And I read that first speaker called the Kenyan leaders, precise the procedure blah, blah. And then the Tanzania Minister of Foreign Affairs refers supporting the Kenyans attacking us. So I was so furious, I called the president. President, you were asking me, you were involving me to indict these people. And now you are criticizing me. Oh prosecutor, don't worry. Just words, because the problem is, they put this in the first topic of the agenda. If we defend you, it's a collapsing of the meeting and only the meeting. So we the agreement is we say yes, but there is no substantial solution. No one will leave the ICC because in fact, everyone agree in Africa that we need ICC because there are 10 leader who are very complicated, and could commit crime we already see. So that is a real operation. And then when you say, regional courts and, then people say, oh, regional courts. American in particular, because Americans don't like ICC. You see, because ICC - Thank you. Yeah, I know. Thank you. Very good. No, because it is not just about accountability. A permanent court is the law saying you should not commit crimes against humanity. That's the point. And that for me, the court is is not just a court is like here. You will need when when you have a fine to speeding freeway, you don't focus on who's punished. The issue is how how this control the speed. That is for me, the normative impact. It's different for a global court than ad hoc court. Regional court are very expensive and no one will do it.

Kal Raustiala 44:34

Okay, final question, and then we'll open it up. So a lot of these cases take a very long time. And they're very expensive, because, you know. Should we be finding ways to speed this up so that more people - so there's not so many cases that have been brought, and especially to completion, and if you look at some of the other other courts, like let's say, the court for the former Yugoslavia, Milosevic actually dies before it even gets to the end because it took so long. So do we need to rethink this approach or is it okay to just select a few people for enormous resources, and what's your view on that?

Luis Moreno Ocampo 45:07

Economic approach, come on. One day when Ukraine has 10 ICC's is - what is the alternative? Justice or war? That is going to cost. The cost, in the competition of cost, we win easily. For me, I will say the best outcome of the court will be no case, because there is no crimes or the national courts are doing the job. So the job is is not - of course, we are doing court cases, we can do, the courts could do better. I think they are improving. But the real, this measure of the number of criminals and the costs is is an accountant vision.

Kal Raustiala 45:45

But what about the time? I understand that, you're right. But it does take a lot of time. And if you compare it to domestic system, they don't always take that long.

Luis Moreno Ocampo 45:53

Well, I agree with you. But the the issue is not so much. It's funny. Lawyer focus on what happened in court, but in court, there is no power problem. The judge has all the power. So that's why lawyers focus on legal analysis or other issues, minor issues. But that way internationalism, people focus on power, because outside the court is complex. Gbago was a very powerful guy, but the day he arrived to the court is a small fish. So the big fish became a small fish when they arrived to the court. So the most important relevant path is to put them in court. What's happened with them is about individual responsibilities. The impact, yes, the impact is that. It's about that. And that way, we do more on impact. That's why the more movies are important. Movies are really important. Because movie creates from, form perceptions. And so I don't think it's about what's happening with each individual. It's about this internationalization, people, ambassadors, diplomat, politicians understanding that they are limits they cannot cross. And this is gone. In my time it was much better, but now it's more gone. And it's not just ethical issue. Look, 100 million people in this place. So after the Second World War '45, the I think the record were 50. That was a record until 2009. 2009 started to improve. That had to grow the numbers, because Afghanistan wars, because the wars this country launch. And now with Ukrainian and the Syrian, it can be millions. Hundred million people who had no representation, no citizenship, nothing and we took all of them. And that's more important than accounting.

Kal Raustiala 47:51

That is, that is. Luis, thank you so much for coming.

Luis Moreno Ocampo 47:54

Thank you for the invitation.

Transcribed by