In his talk last week, Professor Ohlins brought up the difficulties of trying war criminals. Most topical was the case of the United States’s bombing of a Doctors Without Borders hospital. Professor Ohlins mentioned some of the ways the US could be brought to The Hague for trial, one of which was a recommendation from the United Nations Security Council. Being that the US is one of the countries on the Security Council and has a veto, Professor Ohlins noted that the case would never be brought to The Hague through this method.

My question, however, is if it would be a shrewd political move for the United States to put itself on trial for the accidental bombing of the hospital. This would first serve as an actual admittance of wrongdoing in the practical ways that a simple apology from President Obama cannot. And second, this would create a precedent for bringing powerful countries— think Russia—- for their violations. This action would certainly be a difficult choice to make and could cause the United States to lose some stature in the eyes of China and Russia, however, it could create a rule to which every other country would need comply. If the international community is serious about ending war crimes, one country needs to take the lead. In this case, it can be the United States.