One important comment…You missed what I believe is a really big financial factor:

The increased debt enormously reduces the flexibility people have. This could be to take a job when purposefulness and lucrativeness are not aligned. Or a higher risk job in a startup that might not pay well (or pay well right away).

And for many who are doing a Master’s, this reduced flexibility from debt loads comes at the very time during one’s life when there is maximum structural flexibility (no kids or very young kids, young parents, etc).

I personally believe this can have the effect of slowing down learning and discovery of what you’re great at and what most excites you.

Firstly, the main impediment is the states system itself, and considerations of sovereignty, self-interest etc can and will trump efforts to promote a truly international justice system. In this respect, it is not only the major powers that can act in defiance, but also the weaker ones as well. Kagame has literally got away with murder in the DRC with his sponsorship of militia groups in the Kivus – not that Rwanda is the only state with blood on its hands as far as Congo is concerned. The Sri Lankans were also able to tell the international community to go forth and multiply when it came to credible allegations of atrocities during the final phase of the war against the LTTE.

Secondly, the institutions overseeing the promotion of human rights are themselves tainted. The UN Human Rights Council is guaranteed to issue pronouncements by the dozen whenever Israel-Palestine is on the agenda, but when it comes to other gross violations of international law its record is patchy, to say the least. Again, with reference to Sri Lanka, the passage of A/HRC/S-11/L.1/Rev.2 by a majority vote at its 11th session can only be described as a disgrace.

Thirdly, there are grounds for arguing that the process of overseeing human rights violations and indicting the worst offenders requires more of an input from NGOs, thereby ensuring that it’s not just the outlaws who end up in court. But I question the idea that activist groups can (1) always speak for the victims and (2) are likely to be less partial than governments. Again, and as Jonathan Freedland points out, it is striking to note how the same individuals who protested against the Israeli war on Gaza nearly four years ago have said little or nothing about the current situation in Syria.

Fourthly, when it comes to critiques about ethnocentricity and ICC I wonder whether – in the same way patriotism has become the last refuge of the scoundrel – ‘anti-imperialism’ is a convenient bolt-hole for the despot. Indictments against Omar Bashir and Kenyan politicians responsible for inciting ethnic violence during the 2007-2008 election dispute set uncomfortable precedents for certain other African leaders, and I think it is very much in their interests to claim that the ICC represents a neo-colonialist plot by the West to target its enemies.

Finally, the quest for impartiality is always going to be a tough one, and I’m reminded here of the furore the SCSL aroused in Sierra Leone when it issued its indictment against Samuel Hinga Norman, My impression – and speak with a degree of caution because this is within your area of expertise – is that many Sierra Leoneans were outraged that he was put morally and legally on a par with the leaders of the RUF and other warlords. Likewise, the Croats were happy enough to see Mladic, Milosevic et al in front of the ICTY – but once Gotovina and his ilk were indicted it was a different matter.

Your argument that partial justice in this world is better than no justice at all is one that I broadly accept. But this has to be weighed up against the concept of fairness. A court that is not perceived to be fair loses its legitimacy. Without legitimacy, the ICC could become an instrument of the powerful. Given limited resources, the issue of what “partial” justice should look like becomes critical.

I want to live in a world where the ICC will be powerful enough to serve as a credible check on political leaders before they authorize war crimes and human rights abuses. Unfortunately, that won’t hapen if the ICC doesn’t realize that its choice of cases is eroding its own moral authority.

I’ve just read through this piece, and I’ve only got one comment. I accept the fact that the ICC’s focus on African conflicts is treated as proof of a regional bias, but surely the point here is that the victims of these wars are themselves Africans (obviously I don’t need to tell you that, due to your own fieldwork and expertise). If politicians resent what the ICC is doing then what do civilians in Sierra Leone and Liberia think?

I also remember that during the early 1990s the Western states had its critics within Africa because the focus of their intervention and peacekeeping/peace enforcement efforts lay with the former Yugoslavia, whilst the ongoing civil war in Angola and the genocide in Rwanda (in 1994) were ignored. When the latter happened the Nigerian ambassador to the UN asked his Permanent Five counterparts if Africa had dropped off ‘the map of moral concern’, and there was also the sentiment that Bosnia was getting all the UN peacekeepers because its inhabitants were white.

So whilst there are double standards involved from the West I think the same is true from African politicians as well, and with reference to Omar al-Bashir there seems to be this sense that solidarity with fellow leaders trumps any consideration of human rights and justice. And if the ICC can’t put every warlord and mass-murder behind bars then surely bringing some war criminals to justice is better than leaving them all at liberty?

There are also very practical problems to hiring large numbers of qualified people at one time. I expect that it is much more difficult than we might expect.

I also think the binder is an efficient and effective way to bring in qualified people outside of one’s own partisan circle- thus leading to a more inclusive administration and one that is more likely to have different ideas about how to do things. I would actually go farther than I did in the op-ed and argue that this is actually an ideal way to look for qualified women rather than to simply choose those people you already know.

Even though I didn’t focus on it, the fact that he wants to claim credit for the binder is good and bad. It’s bad because he lied about it, showing poor character and poor judgment (you don’t think you’re going to get caught in the insta-fact checking era?). Alternatively, it’s bad because he has a poor memory and honestly thought he had asked for the binder. This is more forgivable, but a bad memory is not a desirable trait in a president.

Here’s why it’s good: he wants to please female voters. He wanted to claim credit for initiating affirmative action in a national debate. (Of course, I’m not convinced he is genuine about it.)

The best unintentional effect of his slip-up: we are now having an international debate about women’s issues that are normally never discussed.