The Sun Climbs Slow: Justice in the Age of Imperial America

by Erna Paris

A powerful investigation of the story and individuals behind America’s refusal to acknowledge international law and an inquiry into the urgent role of international criminal justice from the... This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Hardcover
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0676977448
• ISBN13: 9780676977448
• Release Date: February 2008
• Publisher: Knopf Canada
• Length: 375 Pages
• Weight: 1.50 lbs.

Customer Reviews

An intriguing non-fiction read about how justice tries grow past international borders

There are laws that have been agreed upon by many nations, yet the United States continues to ignore them. "The Sun Climbs Slow: The International Criminal Court and the Struggle for Justice" is a criticism of America's staunch refusal to join an international criminal court that would oppose tyrants and world leaders for the cruelties they enact on their people. Weighing America's reasons versus America's stubbornness, "The Sun Climbs Slow" is an intriguing non-fiction read about how justice tries grow past international borders.

What Americans Used to Know and the Rest of the World Knows

It's appropriate for this story to come to us from our northern neighbor. This is largely a history of the development of international law, culminating in the surprising success of the creation of an international criminal court (ICC). The ICC now has 108 countries as state parties, and the theoretical power to prosecute war crimes by anyone anywhere on earth. The ICC is currently prosecuting a sitting head of state, the president of Sudan. The ICC's decisions cannot be vetoed by UN Security Council members. It is theoretically independent and loyal only to international law. The United States played a leading role in decades past in developing international law and moving forward plans for an ICC. But the ICC sprang into being at the very moment that the United States chose to engage in an open war of aggression against Iraq. President Bill Clinton, his representative having failed to derail the formation of the ICC, had signed the treaty establishing the ICC on his way out the door and tacked on George W. Bush's first signing statement for him. Clinton wrote that although he had signed the treaty he recommended against ratifying it. Bush did him one better and unsigned it. Then his UN ambassador John Bolton set out to weaken the ICC in any way possible, if not destroy it outright. The United States bribed and threatened nations to sign agreements never to use the ICC. And we openly violated international law on a massive scale, threatening the credibility of the court from day one. Yet the ICC advanced, and the behavior of the rogue empire only encouraged other nations to support the international rule of law. The details of the immediate history are stunning, but the historical perspective is more so. Paris describes the failed efforts and baby steps forward over the centuries that led us to this point. This is history we all should know and understand, especially those of us in the nation that constitutes the gravest threat to the future of international law. I have a few quibbles with Paris' account. One is philosophical. She depicts the idea of international law as descending in a direct line almost unchanged from an idea in ancient Greece of divine law. But, while both may be standards of law separate from and claimed to be superior to ordinary law, divine law was either local custom or improvised rules made up as one went along, and such rules were very different from human rights norms as understood today. One important feature of international law is that it is written down, publicly knowable, and theoretically predictably enforceable. But it is also a creation of long cultural development of ideas about rights and justifications. We did not spend thousands of years putting into a treaty what the ancient Greeks already understood. We spent thousands of years thinking it up as well as agreeing to it. This is important because we should be open to advances in the future that we cannot imagine today. Another quibble, which can be forg