{"id":1763,"date":"2007-06-01T09:01:59","date_gmt":"2007-06-01T13:01:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/site\/?p=1763"},"modified":"2010-11-19T08:48:50","modified_gmt":"2010-11-19T12:48:50","slug":"issue_48-2_kamhi","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/2007\/06\/issue_48-2_kamhi\/","title":{"rendered":"Private Funding for Public Justice"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Introduction<\/span><\/strong>*<\/p>\n<p>With  over one hundred international adjudicating bodies currently in  existence, international courts have been created across the globe to  prosecute the perpetrators of both international and national conflicts.  The Nuremburg and Tokyo tribunals, created by the Allies after World  War II, comprised the first \u201cgeneration\u201d of international courts. Forty  years later, a second generation emerged with such institutions as the  International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (\u201cICTY\u201d), the  International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (\u201cICTR\u201d), and the  International Criminal Court (\u201cICC\u201d). The Extraordinary Chambers in the  Courts of Cambodia (\u201cECCC\u201d), established to prosecute the leaders of the  brutal Khmer Rouge regime, is seen as part of a new, third generation  of courts with significantly different infrastructure and sources of  funding. As one of only four of its kind, the ECCC is referred to as a  \u201chybrid\u201d court and represents a new approach to international justice.  Although there is no single model, hybrid courts generally combine the  international, ad hoc nature of other tribunals\u2014such as the ICTY and the  ICTR\u2014with domestic law and personnel. The ECCC, for example,  incorporates aspects of Cambodian law into its proceedings and employs  nationally appointed judges and prosecutors at the tribunal.<\/p>\n<p>Blending  aspects of international and national courts, hybrid tribunals also  create a joint responsibility for funding. By dividing the financial  obligations between a national government and an international  organization like the United Nations, hybrid courts rely on the  fundraising of two fundamentally different institutions, each of which  has its own priorities and concerns. The Cambodian Royal Government  announced last year that it could only contribute a fraction of its  share. Reaction to this declaration\u2014which came two years after the  government assumed joint financial responsibility for the court and  after the international community had already raised its share of the  funding\u2014revealed the frustration and miscommunication that can develop  within a dual system. As hybrid courts represent the future of  international adjudication, it is extremely important that they develop  effective and sustainable funding mechanisms. This Note explores the  possibilities of private funding for international hybrid courts in the  context of Microsoft\u2019s recent donation to the ECCC.<\/p>\n<p>On January  10, 2007, the ECCC received its first private donation\u2014$100,000 from  Microsoft Singapore. Such a donation, coupled with ongoing negotiations  between the ECCC and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation about  providing additional funding, raises the possibility that the ECCC could  turn to private donors to supplement a budget left partially unfunded  by the Cambodian government.<\/p>\n<p>In an era of increasing  globalization and the expanding reach of multinational corporations, it  is not surprising that the private sector plays an ever-growing role in  global politics. Such a role must be under constant scrutiny by the  tribunals themselves, however, to ensure that international bodies and  tribunals not only remain responsible to their member states rather than  to private parties but also render fair and impartial decisions. With  no specific guidelines in the ECCC Law regulating gifts, the tribunal  must be cautious in accepting private donations in order to avoid  conflicts of interest and consequent real or perceived corruption.<\/p>\n<p>This  Note proposes that if the ECCC wishes to solicit private donations, it  should establish an internal foundation to monitor how the funds are  used. Such a foundation could process all private donations, thereby  ensuring that corporate interests do not gain excessive influence over  internal tribunal policy, member states remain accountable for the  court, individual donations do not become personal bribes, and the  reputation of the ECCC is not compromised. A foundation could also track  how the funds are used, providing greater overall transparency for the  activities of the ECCC. This Note will first present the financial  structure of the ECCC, explaining the unique hybrid nature of the court  and how private donations would fit within this structure. Next, it will  examine the legal provisions of the ECCC Law regarding donations and  analyze possible legal bars and other potential conflicts of interest.  Finally, the Note will conclude with a concrete proposal for a  foundation to accept private donations. . . .<br \/>\n<strong><br \/>\n<\/strong><em>*  This excerpt does not include citations. To read the entire article,  including supporting notes, please download the PDF.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>As one of only four of its kind, the ECCC is referred to as a \u201chybrid\u201d court and represents a new approach to international justice. Although there is no single model, hybrid courts generally combine the international, ad hoc nature of other tribunals\u2014such as the ICTY and the ICTR\u2014with domestic law and personnel. The ECCC, for example, incorporates aspects of Cambodian law into its proceedings and employs nationally appointed judges and prosecutors at the tribunal.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"_FSMCFIC_featured_image_caption":"","_FSMCFIC_featured_image_nocaption":"","_FSMCFIC_featured_image_hide":"","_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_members_access_role":[],"_members_access_error":""},"categories":[123],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1763","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-print-archives"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/peZu3S-sr","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1763","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1763"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1763\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1763"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1763"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1763"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}