| Photo by Jane Scherr |
Brenda Hollis Interview: Conversations with History; Institute of International Studies, UC Berkeley
| Photo by Jane Scherr |
Page 8 of 8
Looking back after all of this very difficult and significant work, what view of mankind do you take away? Is it pessimistic or optimistic about our future and our ability to implement civilized norms in all parts of the world, subject to these kinds of horrific crimes?
I would have to say that it would have to be guardedly optimistic. As a species, we are capable of great good. I think we are inclined to more selfish evil. But the fact that we could create international tribunals, the fact that we could create international norms of conduct, I think, are grounds for optimism. I believe, however, that we continue to be very motivated by the need to perpetuate our own and define our own in very narrow terms, instead of looking at our own as other members of the human race. So in that regard, I don't think I'm pessimistic, I think I'm realistic, in that we are certainly capable of committing horrific crimes, and not by people who are totally evil. But I think we as a huge international community certainly have the brain power, and have the ability to conceptualize in moral terms what would allow us to move beyond what we are currently doing. But it's a long process, and I'm not convinced we'll be successful.
If students were to watch this program, and they're interested in doing this kind of work, dealing with human rights issues, what advice would you give them for preparing for their future?
I think, first, they would have to look at what type of human rights work they wanted to do. If they're interested in international criminal tribunals or the international criminal court, they would need to look at criminal justice, because, in essence, that's what these institutions are, they're criminal justice systems. And they would need to look at that in terms of international criminal law, which is evolving. But there are now programs that give degrees in international criminal law.
If they are interested in human rights law or humanitarian law in a broader issue, then I think they would want to look at a more broad-based approach to it, and perhaps to become involved with nongovernmental organizations, or the United Nations, or their own country's State Department, or other ways in which countries are attempting to develop international norms regarding human rights.
And to look into their own country, because we in the United States can't say that we are free of racial bias and religious bias. All too often, people have a tendency to say, "I believe the world is this way, therefore, you must comply with my beliefs." There are things we can do internally to promote international human rights, because we're part of the international human rights community.
What would you tell them it takes in terms of personal character, in terms of virtues of strengths, to do this kind of work that you've been describing?
That's a tough question. I think what it takes is a person who is willing to look objectively at the facts and develop the facts before they make a decision. I think it would take a person who believes in fundamental fairness and practices it. I think it would take a person of integrity. And I would say, especially if you are looking at the prosecution side of the process -- it's the side I've always been involved in -- very often prosecutors are painted as sort of the guys in the black hats. In my view of the world of criminal justice, one of the most key players in the system, even more than judges, is the prosecutor, in terms of integrity, because you have the ability to control evidence that's released, to investigate in certain ways. And you have, I believe, the obligation to act impartially and fairly. Part of your job is to protect the rights of the accused, as well as to advance your case. So if you're going to be a prosecutor, I think you need to be a person of integrity, and a person who is courageous enough to be honest, even if that's not what your bosses what to hear.
One final question: what do you see as the future with regard to the organizations that will continue on this work? Do you think the world will move to a generalized acceptance of the new international courts, and that these kinds of tasks that you've been describing will fall under its purview? Or is there a more satisfactory way to realize the implications of this work?
There's already a generalized acceptance of the international court. That's why it's in existence now, or at least the statute is in existence. The international criminal court has less powers than the ad hoc tribunals do, because it is a product of compromise of states that want to maintain their integrity and their sovereignty. There is, I think, a determination that the international criminal court level can move the primary responsibility for prosecutions back to the states. That may be a good idea. I'm not sure it will be workable in some situations. Perhaps what you may have is an international criminal court and perhaps regionalized tribunals, such as you would see for East Timor, say. So perhaps a mix of the two, until the international criminal court perhaps is amended in some ways, in my mind, to make it more responsive to some of the situations it's going to have to face.
Colonel Hollis, thank you very much for taking the time and discussing your work, and the future of the actual implementation of humanitarian law. Thank you.
It's my pleasure.
And thank you very much for joining us for this Conversation With History.
© Copyright 2001, Regents of the University of California
To the Conversations page