Geoffrey Roberston was there to address "the growing international criticism towards the ICC". Throughout his lecture on International Justice, he gave the overview and historical path that lead it to where it is today.
The significance of the Treaty of Westphalia has had on law and the principles of Machiavelli's 'Prince' were mentioned, as was the first known historical example of intervention on the grounds of humanitarianism, when, supported by the Hellenic movement, spearheaded by Byron, the British intervened at Navarino for Greece to gain independence from the Ottoman Empire.
He also explained that the Nuremberg trials "set down a legacy" for International Justice Law. As well as illustrating examples of sceptics remarks on International Justice Law, such as, in respects to the Rwanda genocide, some express that "the road of hell is paved with good conventions".
Geoffrey Robertson presented the positive and pessimistic way that one could view International Justice.
Questions such as "Is the world abandoning the fight against impunity? " were raised as were "will Realpolitik intervene? " and "was it all an illusion? " in relations to the Arab uprising.
He highlighted that the trouble with trials is that they are very long and expensive. However, he also stated that "International Justice is so recent" and yet it has managed to achieve a lot in the few years it has come to be. It has lead to good developments such as the African Court on Human and People's Rights and many important trials that have held certain individuals accountable for their actions, that once, may not have been.
International Justice can be seen as controversial as well as a right.
What do you think on the subject?