Arab States and the Role of Islam in the International Criminal Court

This article assesses the various disagreements between Arab and western states that surfaced at the 1998 Rome Conference and Preparatory Commission. It also discusses the relationship between state repression and cultural adaptation by examining the undeveloped domestic criminal systems of Arab states and the ambiguous role played by shariah (Islamic law) in the constitutions of many of them. It argues two main points: that more mutual accommodation will be needed to resolve these and future conflicts between Islamic and international law; and that such conflicts between the ICC and Arab states expose the need for further cultural adaptation to the ICC Statute. It is out of this process of cultural adaptation that the relationship between Islam and serious international crimes will evolve.     

A Question of Morality: Artists' Values and Public Funding for the Arts

In 1989, the combination of art, religion, homosexuality, ana¹ public dollars set off an explosive two-year battle and a decade of skirmishes over funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. To promote artistic freedom and to avoid political controversy, federal arts policy delegates specific funding decisions to private donors and arts professionals. In an era of morality politics—hot-button issues driven by deeply held beliefs rather than by expertise—that strategy no longer works. Artists, donors, and arts audiences diverge widely from the rest of the American public in their attitudes toward religion, sexual morality, and civil liberties, as General Social Survey data show. Delegating funding decisions to them has naturally led to some subsidies of art offensive to important segments of the population.     

‘Them’ and ‘us’: demonising politicians by moral double standards

The distance between politicians and those they are supposed to represent is substantial. Almost invariably, it is politicians themselves who are made to shoulder the responsibility for this ‘gap’, their actions being demonised. This paper assesses some ‘ordinary’ ethical lapses that politicians are often accused of: lying, breaking promises and being self-serving. It is argued that the public tend to apply double standards when it comes to the moral expectations that they have of their representatives, inasmuch as they far more readily accept ethically dubious actions when they apply to other social and public roles. The moral singularity of the political sphere is called into question, with the effect of helping to narrow the gap between the two categories, and encourage more empathy on the part of the public.