Mohamed Sid-Ahmed discusses the new notion of international justice The phenomenon of globalisation has assumed a number of forms over the years. The first to emerge was economic globalisation, as represented in the drive of corporate capital to dominate the global economy. Then came social globalisation, as represented in the emergence of a global anti-war constituency, side by side with the spread of crimes against humanity. Finally, we are seeing the emergence of a new notion, namely, international justice. A process still in the making, it is no longer confined to the "justice of the victors" formula of the 1945 Nuremberg trials but now extends to a wide array of acts considered as running counter to the legal system governing global society. The term is ambivalent because international justice presupposes the existence of the same type of justice all over the world, while the notion of justice changes as we move from one place to another, from one historical period to another. Any political system that attributes itself to democracy is made up of three separate branches: the executive, the legislative and the judicial. The order in which they are cited is indicative of their respective importance in the scheme of things. It is the executive and the legislative that are central to the workings of the system; the judicial is more an honorary member of the power structure, its influence more moral than real. Would turning the moral authority of the judicial branch into an effective tool of government extend democracy's scope and help it move forward? Given the diversity of judicial systems applied at the national level, establishing a single judicial system that fits the requirements of both international justice and national interests will not be easy. Can such an approach ensure a wider margin of democracy? When the function of the judicial branch of government in a given society is to uphold the sovereign character of the executive branch this can be at the expense of justice. How to reconcile these two opposite considerations? Is it possible to establish a judicial system, and hence a constitution, in Iraq, which would draw its features from the American constitution, for example, irrespective of the different cultural and historical characters of the two societies? Political philosophy in the context of globalisation puts forward a qualitatively different assessment of the outcome of a conflict, an entirely new way of determining who emerged a winner and who a loser from any given conflict. In the past, a confrontation had to end up with a clear winner and a clear loser, but that is no longer the case. The requirements of one party need not be looked upon as the exact counterpart of what the opposite party is aiming to achieve. An agreement can then be reached according to which the principle of compensation is established and exchanges ensure a better redistribution of the cards in the hands of various parties, to the benefit of all concerned. Of course, this would require reaching a degree of balance in the strength of the conflicting parties so that the net result of the mutual concessions between them eventually becomes equivalent to zero. Public opinion is then taken into consideration to make sure that no party, in the final analysis, is unduly disadvantaged. For example, what can in most cases be of vital importance for one protagonist need not be so for others. And applying the principle of exchange of benefit turns out to be mutually beneficial for many of the concerned parties. This is a typical case of the benefit that can be drawn out by not leaving anything to chance and by taking advantage out of maximising the benefits for all parties. A mechanism can thus be put in place to ensure that the advantage of every part is optimised to the utmost. What remains as a residue and/or cannot have been optimised is to be left to financial compensation, a procedure that must be implemented according to strict rules. Thus the issue of compensation becomes a vital element in the entire negotiation process. It is the only means by which no party is in the final analysis, handicapped. So with the passing of time, and the delay due to the compensation process, the whole negotiation process is disrupted and distorted at its very roots. However, another aspect that cannot be disregarded is that dealing in substantial exchanges of cash, instead of solid ownership in the form of property (either land or housing), helps foster illegal transactions that cannot be easily subjected to accountability or transparency, and can thus be the object of widespread corruption. A procedure whose initial aim is to prevent corruption, international justice can very well turn out to become a vehicle for the promotion of international injustice.
