Political short-Termism vs Legal Long–Termism

inadvertently assumed responsibility for the war crimes committed by the Ba’ath regime since under international law a side which supports and assists a military regime can be held accountable for the war crimes committed by that regime. Arguably, if we view the use of force by the Russian troops in Syria by reference to international law principles then Russia may be accountable for numerous violations. However, the power of the International Crimes Court is limited as Syria is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, and Russia has not approved it either. Nonetheless, the Security Council may authorise private courts to be established for prosecuting war crimes, such as the International Crime Tribunal of Rwanda but their ability to do so may be limited by Russia’s veto. A possible solution would be to call a special session of the U.N General Assembly. This measure can be invoked when the Security Council fails to maintain security due to a veto of a permanent Security Council member, although this is unlikely. It remains to be seen how Russia’s intervention will ultimately be understood on an international level.

OLIVIA MOORE

JF LAW AND POLITICS

During her speech to Trinity students on climate change on the 18th of February this year, Mary Robinson made a point that was particularly resounding. She noted that the inactivity on behalf of politicians in Ireland regarding causes like global warming could be due to the fact that politicians are always looking toward the next election and emphasised the short-term nature of politics. This provides an interesting contrast when considering the relatively long-term nature of the law. Politicians are frequently accused of political shorttermism, meaning having the sole or primary purpose of obtaining support for the next election, rather than working towards long-term goals for the good of the public. It is perhaps true that democracy perpetuates this. In Ireland a general election must take place at least every five years, and arguably only around half of this time is spent on policies, after taking into account the settling-in periods and the time spent campaigning for re-elections. However, even the short-range policies that are actually implemented can be viewed simply as incentives for voters in the hopes of re-election. In Ireland politicians do tend to rely on their pensions more so than in other countries, which only further enhances this gravitation towards instant gratification in pursuit of popularity and possession of power. This boils down to the approach of merely “getting through” the problems in the short-term rather than actually finding solutions long-term, as can be seen so clearly in the build-up of the current Irish Healthcare Crisis. In the words of Warren Buffett in 1977, “when human politicians choose between the next election and the next generation, it’s clear what usually happens.” However, in terms of the law, this is quite clearly not an applicable criticism. It can certainly be contended that in Ireland the doctrine of precedence is vital in ensuring solid and consistent long-term effects within the legal framework. As a common law system there is no set of authoritative codes for our jurisdiction, so the rules are found in the previous decisions of Courts. This is precedent, defined by Kenneally and Tully in The Irish Legal System as the “application of a principle of law as laid down by a higher court on a previous occasion in a similar case.” Stare Decisis,