Some thoughts:
- A great overview of the history and development of international human rights law and global responses to various atrocity crimes. A very long read, but plenty of fascinating commentary about specific historical events and their implications.
- This edition was published in 2012, and when I looked up some of the cases, it's a bit sad to see how little progress has been made in the past ten years (e.g. China still enjoying impunity for various human rights violations, current situation with Russia, the fact that the Khmer Rouge Tribunal has as of 2021 passed only four verdicts of dubious quality). Oh, and also how nuclear stockpiling is still a threat.
- There are events which I don't know enough about to have a strong opinion on, namely cases in Africa and the Middle East. It's pretty clear that Robertson has a very firm stance on certain issues, however if he can be said to take sides, he's consistently on the side of justice and the law, which I very much respect (despite not always appreciating the 'sassy barrister' style remarks he's apt to make). I don't think there's a single country, religion, culture, political group etc. exempt from being roasted by him when they are the perpetrators (or enablers) of serious crimes.
Key points to take away:
- Tyrannicide is not the way to go. Although it's quite natural that victims of violent regimes often desire revenge and retribution, the global human rights cause is further injured if the accused are summarily executed and allowed to posthumously gain mythical status, instead of being brought before a reputable court of law and made to justify their actions (and publicly condemning themselves in the process).
- Conversely, show trials (e.g. Stalin's) are incredibly dangerous and very damaging to the credibility of international human rights instruments. The right to a fair trial is particularly important when individuals are faced with such serious charges.
- Anticipatory self-defence is poor justification for military action against states (even if it's a 'failed state'). Also, forces which do invade other countries to capture (or kill) hostile persons generally have a very poor track record of ensuring stability and recovery once their objective has been accomplished. Looking mostly at America here.
- The principle of Responsibility to Protect has often been exercised poorly due to factors such as political concerns and double standards. The interpretation of R2P can be subjective and modified to suit political ambitions.
- International bodies such as the UN and ICC were established with noble intent, but their success is severely hampered by a variety of reasons including lack of cooperation, prohibitive cost, lack of resources, lack of will, offending states not recognising jurisdiction, etc.
- Lawful non-intervention can also have devastating results (e.g. Rwanda). It's difficult to determine whether the loss of lives (peacekeeper forces and civilians) during an intervention will guarantee the safety of vulnerable people groups after the conflict is over. However the alternative doesn't have to be "do nothing and watch the human rights violations from afar".