1)Please find below a thread response to the online reactions to my recent article published on #JusticeInConflict, save for @dovjacobs article published today that I will address elsewhere. #ICC @IntlCrimCourt @MarkKersten
2)The article did hit a "nerve", as intended and as some have conceded. Specifically, it was intended to jolt the #ICC stakeholder/commentating community into serious reflection re: purpose, nature, & quality of our commentary about the Court.
3)We can be defensive or bury our heads in the sand, but intellectual honesty is in order. The online reactions thus far are not too surprising but nevertheless problematic in their own right. In reviewing and pondering about these reactions, there are two main takeaways:
4) #1 Almost as if scripted, the online reactions were all the evidence needed to demonstrate the precise problems that affect our community. The reactions seemed like a parody of the article's substance itself.
5) #2 Based upon the public response solely, it seems that the majority in our community do, in fact, believe they are beyond reproach or do not need to reflect on the issues raised in the article, or for that matter, being fair to the thesis I advanced in my piece.
6) Deja vu, I am afraid. I’m more than willing to be corrected, but that came through in the responses. Let me please respond to specific responses raised, which, in turn, I believe will help illustrate my takeaways above, among other issues.
7)@marianacpena, as I imagine you would agree, this is not a warranted framing of the article at all. Why misrepresent the thesis? I really only need to quote the article in response.
8)"TheCt should not be impervious to honest, well-reflected constructive critiques about making improvements when and where necessary. Like any institution of import, the overall health of theCt and its work requires constructive and learned criticism from a range of stakeholders
9)"....Without such engagement, the ICC would suffer, if not drift into irrelevance. In this respect, the intensity of interest in the ICC, and the negatives that come with it, are a good problem to have."
10) @EA_Witte, while I fully appreciate the import of the message behind your story, I simply respond: what do you actually disagree with in the piece? Far from being cheeky, I do not see what you are disagreeing with specifically.
11) My article was published in 2020 not “2009.” Taking no position on climate around the time of your experience, the industry of ICC criticism has undoubtedly grown significantly since & the Court too. In short, everything you said is fully compatible w/ the article's message.
12)Related to Eric's response is the belief that my article was written in response to the recent public disagreement b/w @OSFJustice @ijmonitor & #OTP. The article came into fruition long before this issue arose, both years of thinking & the actual process of pen to paper.
13) However, this recent spat did illustrate parts of what the article addresses. It is necessary to say that #OSJI & their staff are admired by many for good reason: they take their work seriously, take in many perspectives, are measured, and do a commendable job in their work.
14)Yet, they are not infallible, which I am sure they readily admit. Re: this spat, no one (incl me) knows the truth except those involved. However, it should concern all when one side states that comments&points were "filtered out" etc.of the report. This raises add'l questions.
15)Re:@philclark79 reaction, this is a misplaced reading of the art. On top of the absurdity to say the Ct has only been subject to years of "safe" commentary, nowhere do I state we need to be more protective of the Court.
16) Frankly, this is a trusty cut & paste, knee-jerk response to the article&its message. In fact, the only thing that seems to be "explod[ing]" from closer scrutiny is the defensive backlash, especially when the article's message is more humility and perspective.
17)As said above, critique (even harsh) is necessary and good.Yet, not all critiques are created the same. As @dovjacobs admits, there are many commentators who "don't know what they are talking about" & unaware of dynamics at play inside&outside #ICC yet criticize w/o restraint.
18)This lot, even more that fit in other boxes, and MYSELF could always use the incorporation of more humility and perspective in their commentary and related work. Inconvenient truth perhaps, but truth nonetheless.
19)To my sparring partner @kevinjonheller, let me begin by saying that Kevin and I often agree on more than we do not. He often provides fresh lines of thinking&insight that is needed. Plus, I will not lambast a fellow Coloradoan! ;)
20)But we share deep-seated disagreements on some crucial matters that we have expressed online. Kevin, we both know that parading examples will only devolve into litigating/re-litigating specifics, which would distract from the thesis-like general message of the article.
21)Further,the validity of the argument in the piece does not&should not hinge on a few examples here&there, not to mention impossibility of providing examples that capture multiplicity of problematic tendencies&nuance necessary. Lastly, not my style to call out like this.
22) Re: @issues_global, for someone who hides behind a nameless account & libels folks, makes sense you accuse others of hiding behind the work&name of others. Your posts are Exhibit A in terms of bad-faith actors, so thank you for stepping forward as such a clear example.
23)If you have any honor, disclose yourself & re-read the article more closely. Every point you raised, misconstrued, or deliberately mischaracterized is discussed specifically in the article.
24) Similarly to comments above on "to critique or not" @NikaJei, it appears you should re-read the article, if you did once. Your comments are fully misplaced & deliberately misleading. Quoting from the piece is sufficient enough to respond.
25) "Even here, these passages will be labelled by some as coming from a true-believer or an apologist, never to be genuinely pondered as maybe true."
Unroll @threadreaderapp please
