The Power of Public Opinion vs. the Public Opinion of Power by David Gallup The "court of public opinion" influences judicial power. In other words, the general public often makes its own decisions about the innocence or guilt of human rights violators and can attempt to exert moral pressure to persuade their putative governmental representatives to take action against the violators. However, when that same government is also the rights violator, the public loses the legal means to resolve disputes.

How the public views its position in the world's power structure can play a big role in whether a verdict is respected and upheld, or rejected and overturned. If the public feels that a court cannot enforce its rulings pertaining to the community's laws, then it will lose faith in the judicial system and seek justice elsewhere.

At a "World Peace Through Law" conference in 1987, the World Jurist Association appointed a committee of seven lawyers and jurists plus a legal advisor to draft a statute for a "Citizens' World Court" (CWC) to respond to the lack of justice at the global level. On October 11, 1991, the Jurist Association adopted the draft statute and instructed the committee to promote and implement this proposed court.

The CWC today remains in statute form, yet to be formally organized, because of a lack of funding.

In a foreword to the CWC statute, committee chair Daniel Monaco writes, "Since innumerable attempts on the part of nation-states and other political entities to develop the necessary mechanics for a viable world law system have ended in failure and frustration, it was necessary to try this new approach."

The CWC's proponents decided it was time to create a court that was not beholden to national governments for its existence. They are trying to compensate for the lack of compulsory jurisdiction at the United Nations-sponsored International Court of Justice as well as the lack of individual accountability and judicial accessibility at the world level.

Despite the CWC's intention to provide standing to individuals for claims of human rights violations at the global level, the Citizens' World Court does not have any enforcement mechanisms for its verdicts. The public may thus oppose establishment of a court that does not offer victims redress from violators or any compensation, besides raising moral awareness.

The CWC committee considers that "such a court, which would represent human beings as world citizens, is not only feasible but necessary." I posit that to represent human beings as world citizens, law and government that transcend national sovereignty are necessary. World law and world government, however, are not what Monaco's committee intended to promote through the CWC.

In a conversation that I had with Monaco at the end of April, he explained, "We're not trying to create a whole new world order; we're just trying to create some kind of judicial system." More discouragingly still, the CWC statute emphasizes international legal precedent that has proven to be ineffective.

The committee plans to employ "international law and laws of war" currently supported in theory by national governments. Article One of the CWC statute states the court's intention to "achieve international peace and justice for all mankind [sic] and in furtherance thereof to complement and supplement the International Court of Justice so as to create public opinion to influence states to strengthen the International Court of Justice by granting it more compulsory jurisdiction."

It is unlikely that public opinion will effect reform of either the International Court of Justice or the proposed Permanent International Criminal Court. Neither is meant to provide justice to individuals. Both, in fact, exacerbate the elitist arrogance of national governments to the detriment of justice and sovereignty for individual human beings.

However, the CWC may raise public awareness about the lack of justice at the global level. Monaco asserts that the CWC will at least provide a forum for adjudication of issues of global injustice that national governments now manage to avoid through the existing and proposed international courts. Examples include Saddam Hussein's role in the Gulf War and Raoul CŽdras' military rule in Haiti.

The South African Court of Reconciliation may represent a model for the CWC. This tribunal hears the complaints of people whose human rights have been violated, and it initiates public discussion of these violations. Monaco says, "They want to break that cycle of hatred, that cycle of violence, and Mandela is the first one in the history of the world who has said, ÔWe're not going to punish the vanquished; we'll just tell them to stand up, come to court, the Court of Reconciliation, tell their story, and they will be forgiven.' That's the way to start." Public opinion, which becomes more and more important as information and communications technology develop, is one kind of enforcer of our concepts of justice.

By rendering judgments supported solely by public opinion rather than by enforcement mechanisms, the CWC, according to Monaco, can prosecute international violators in absentia without concerns about due-process protection of defendants. In addition, Monaco contends that the power of public opinion will help prevent "international criminals" from continuing their actions.

I would emphasize that the CWC statute does not provide for global subpoenas, injunctions or writs (of habeas corpus, for example). Consequently, the absent defendants will be able to continue their violations while the CWC is ruling against them.

Although the court of public opinion is powerful, it is not powerful enough to overcome the threat of nuclear war, terrorism and unbridled governmental and corporate oppression. The International Court of Justice, the current ad hoc tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, the proposed International Criminal Court and even the CWC all fail humanity because they rely either upon nation-states' submitting their governments and citizens to the courts' jurisdiction or upon the unenforceable international laws that nation-states have themselves propounded.

By directly relying on states for their existence or by failing to seek enforcement powers based on individual sovereignty, these courts are embroiled in the nation-state system, which both overtly and covertly condones war.

In contrast, another court has been formulated to provide a forum and enforceable redress for individuals. This body, known as the World Court of Human Rights (WCHR), was created by world citizen delegates at a 1974 convention. Like the Citizens' World Court, the WCHR provides individuals with standing to adjudicate claims of human rights violations. However, unlike the CWC, the World Court of Human Rights is designed to hand down enforceable rulings, with a proposed world peace force to arrest and charge human rights violators regardless of national borders and politics. The WCHR will also maintain a global network of regional tribunals to administer justice and will have jurisdiction over all human and environmental rights cases, not only "genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity," as stipulated in the CWC statute.

The World Court of Human Rights will be accessible to all individuals, regardless of the severity of alleged violations, once local judicial remedies, if any, have been exhausted. If not to a world human rights court, where else can individuals turn for global justice? We need to channel our efforts into the WCHR, a court that transcends all other international judicial bodies Ñ existing or proposed. We need to support creation of a court that challenges the nation-state judicial system's handling of human rights violations and that overturns the war system perpetuated by national politicians.

The WCHR system creates an avenue for humans to establish enforceable world common law Ñ a basis to re-evaluate the quasi-legislative law found in declarations, conventions and treaties. Because no world legislature yet exists to draft world human rights laws, the WCHR is a springboard from which other global institutions and structures can be developed. A global judicial system, such as the WCHR, in conjunction with a global legislature and executive, could outlaw, prevent and ultimately eliminate war.

The public must be convinced that a global court system will apply the public's power to seek and secure justice. Once the public is convinced of the effective role of world human rights courts, it will be willing to fund and enthusiastically support the evolution of this unprecedented system.

David Gallup is General Counsel of the World Service Authority.

Table of Contents