Republika Srpska: the Ambiguous Shape of an Entity 34 Nick Barbash International Insights
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Spring Contents Spring, 2007, Volume 2 Essays International Law and Diplomacy and the American 4 Death Penalty Briggs Matheson A New Solution Set for Darfur: 14 Reconciling Current Proposals with Reality Benjamin E. Power The Fight Against Impunity in Argentina: 20 Justice After 20 Years Emily Spangenberg Republika Srpska: The Ambiguous Shape of an Entity 34 Nick Barbash International Insights Ideology, Pathology, and Politics: U.S. HIV/AIDS 50 Initiatives in Sub-Saharan Africa in the New Millennium Adam Lichtenheld From Brawn Drain to Brain Drain 64 Liana Brower U n d e r g r o f a d l u a a A Word from the Editors n t e r u I n o J t e r n Dear Reader, a t i o We are pleased to present you with our Spring 2007 n a JUISl S t issue. The magnitude and excellence of submissions, u d i e sent from around the world, attest to the wealth of s knowledge and resource on part of undergraduate Journal of Undergraduate International Studies students worldwide. It is with sincere gratitude that we thank those who have provided the Journal of EDITOR-IN-CHIEF ............................... ASHLEY PUEGNER Undergraduate International Studies with the means EDITOR-IN-CHIEF ......................... ARIANE C. STROMBOM ESSAY EDITOR ....................................... EMMA CONDON to actively partake in the intellectual community and ESSAY EDITOR ................................. REBECCA J. KELEHER to exhibit the latest in foreign policy research. ESSAY EDITOR ..................................... DANIEL KNUDSEN In doing so, we extend our appreciation to the many ESSAY EDITOR ........................................... AMANDA LEE ESSAY EDITOR ................................. BRENNA R. WANOUS writers who offered submissions, Professor Jon ESSAY EDITOR .................................... KATHERINE WIRKA Pevehouse, Memorial Library, L&S Honors Program, INTERNATIONAL INSIGHTS EDITOR ....... MARIA D. PUTZER University of Wisconsin Foundation and the donors, INTERNATIONAL INSIGHTS EDITOR ........... BRENNA SKELLY DIRECTOR OF DESIGN & PRODUCTION .... KRIS UGARRIZA whose contributions breathe life into the intellectual tradition. We hope that JUIS may kindle the process FOR QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, FEEDBACK WRITE TO: of innovation and prove that the most important [email protected] dialogue for international policy begins here, on The views expressed in JUIS are those of the authors campus. alone, and do not express an editorial consensus. The authors are responsible for all information contained Sincerely, in articles. The editors do not assume responsibility The Editors for the validity of the facts expressed in the articles. The Journal of Undergraduate JUIS is published bi-annually and its contents are International Studies (JUIS) would copyrighted and cannot be reproduced or re-written like to acknowledge its Founder and in any way without written permission. first Editor-in-Chief, David Coddon. The first two issues of JUIS were published with the generous support of the University of Wisconsin Leadership Trust, and continued publication is made possible through the Coddon Family Foundation. Additional funding and support is provided by the University of Wisconsin-Madison College of Letters and Science Honors Program. Essays Photo by Liana Brower International Law and Diplomacy and the American 4 Death Penalty Briggs Matheson A New Solution Set for Darfur: 14 Reconciling Current Proposals with Reality Benjamin E. Power The Fight Against Impunity in Argentina: 20 Justice After 20 Years Emily Spangenberg Republika Srpska: The Ambiguous Shape of an Entity 34 Nick Barbash ESSAYS InternationalInternational LawLaw andand DiplomacyDiplomacy andand thethe AmericanAmerican DeathDeath PenaltyPenalty Debates about the death penalty in America concern a broad range of practical, moral, and legal concerns, but do not pay sufficient attention to international considerations. Both opponents and proponents of the death penalty rights. Conversely, international legal decisions and tend to frame their arguments in terms of whether diplomatic agreements alter the implementation of the death penalty is good or bad for a particular the death penalty in ways that American legislators, state or the country without adequately recognizing prosecutors, and courts cannot control, making fair that the American capital punishment system is and consistent capital punishment decision-making increasingly woven into international law and diplomacy. The domestic focus is partly the result of our federalism; that is, the death penalty in America Any analysis of the death penalty requires examination of the is largely viewed as a policy question to be addressed international context in which this system operates. This essay does not attempt to challenge the various domestic defenses or criticisms at the state or federal level. American death penalty of the death penalty system. Rather, it explores the relationship policy and practice undermine America’s diplomatic between the American system of capital punishment and the efforts abroad, especially in the promotion of human international community along two dimensions. First, it analyzes InternationalInternational LawLaw andand DiplomacyDiplomacy andand thethe AmericanAmerican DeathDeath PenaltyPenalty By Briggs Matheson 06 the detrimental effect of the death penalty on America’s diplomatic Critics and supporters of the death penalty continue to debate status and foreign policy objectives. Second, it examines the effects the practical, moral, and legal foundations of capital punishment, of international legal decisions and diplomatic agreements on the generally framing their arguments in domestic terms. For example, domestic implementation of the death penalty in America. Both on the issue of criminal deterrence, death penalty proponents often parts of the essay demonstrate that the death penalty cannot be argue that executions deter further crime and save innocent lives.8 assessed independently of the international arena, and that such an Opponents, on the other hand, note the variation in many studies assessment points to serious problems with continued use of capital of the death penalty’s deterrent value, and argue that evidence punishment in America. of deterrence is inconclusive.9 Similarly, proponents cite public opinion as proof that Americans “want” the death penalty as an option for criminal punishment. Opponents respond that support The American Death Penalty: Policy and Practice for the death penalty in public opinion polls “is not a genuine but Before turning to the international sphere, some background on a spurious function of people’s desire for harsh but meaningful 10 the domestic characteristics of the American capital punishment punishment for convicted murderers.” Discussion about the system are worth noting, including some of the basic arguments death penalty, therefore, is often (though not always) framed as a used to criticize or defend this practice. Thirty-eight states currently domestic policy debate. have laws to execute criminals convicted of capital offenses; there In recent years, debate about the death penalty in the are also federal provisions for capital punishment. According to the constitutional law arena occasionally has drawn upon international Death Penalty Information Center, sixty criminals were executed considerations. For instance, legal scholars and Supreme Court in 2005, with another 3,380 inmates currently on death row in Justices have referenced international trends to measure “evolving America.1 In Furman v. Georgia,2 the Supreme Court declared standards of decency” when evaluating the constitutionality of capital punishment unconstitutional. In his concurring opinion, the death penalty under the “cruel and unusual” provision of the Justice Brennan explained that the death penalty was “being Eighth Amendment.11 Furthermore, some legal scholars argue inflicted arbitrarily.”3 States subsequently attempted to reform their that the Court’s decision in Roper v. Simmons,12 which declared capital punishment procedures to avoid arbitrary execution, with unconstitutional the execution of minors under the same provision, the Supreme Court upholding the constitutionality of these revised indicates a general shift in constitutional jurisprudence towards systems in 1976.4 Since then, over 1,000 criminals have been “constitutional comparativism,” using international norms as an executed in America.5 However, several Supreme Court decisions “instructive” guide for judicial reasoning.13 over the past three decades have made significant changes to the Others note the Court’s recent citation of international practice of capital punishment, such as limiting the types of offenses normative trends to evaluate claims of individual liberty outside of eligible for the death penalty6 and declaring unconstitutional the the death penalty debate. For example, in Lawrence v. Texas14 the execution of mentally retarded inmates and minors.7 Supreme Court overruled Bowers v. Hardwick,15 and struck down Briggs Matheson is a junior at Stanford University majoring in Political Science. 07 a Texas statute banning consensual sodomy, citing the European country as the world leader in human rights advocacy. As a result, Convention on Human Rights’ decision in a case “with parallels to” lawmakers have strong incentives to support human rights, but Lawrence.16 Such references have raised the ire of other legal experts may not have the will or incentive to follow through if doing so (such as Justice Scalia), who argue that