Včeraj sem objavil povezavo na besedilo o dokaj absurdni ovadbi urednika zaradi objave kritične (in očitano žaljive) recenzije znanstvene monografije. Če si še niste, vas vsekakor vabim, da si ga preberete.
Preberete si lahko tudi samo kratko recenzijo, ki je podlaga za ovadbo, in si ustvarite svoje mnenje. Moje je, da je recenzija ostra in kritična, nikakor pa ne žaljiva: če kaj, sem v opisani kritiki prepoznal pogosto značilnost monografij (ali drugih razprav), ki želijo biti izvirne, potem pa se v praksi pogosto zvedejo na povzemanje že dognanega in prekladanje prebrane literature. (Čeprav je kdaj tudi suvereno poznavanje literature že prezahteven zalogaj.)
Sem pa opazil še eno hudomušno podrobnost, ki je bila delno posledica tega, da sem najprej prebral uvodnik in šele potem recenzijo.
1. V uvodniku Weiler navaja pismo, v katerem avtorica med drugim pravi:
With all due respect, anyone familiar with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the ICC knows that the said Rules were adopted by the Assembly of States Parties and not by judges.
(see http://www.icc-cpi.int/about/ataglance/establishment.html).In the first paragraph of the review, Prof. Weigend writes ‘The Court . . . can rely
on . . . its judge-made Regulations’.
2. Weiler ji je v odgovoru k tej opazki zapisal:
The ellipses in your quote slightly but meaningfully change what Professor Weigend wrote in his Review: He wrote:
‘The Court does not exactly set out into uncharted territory because it can rely on its Statute, on extensive Rules of Procedure and Evidence and on its judge-made Regulations.’
As you can see, he says that the Court can rely on three sources: The Statute, the extensive Rules of Procedure and Evidence (which, indeed, as you point out were adopted by the Assembly of State Parties) and on its judge-made Regulations (my emphasis).
I am not an expert, like you and Professor Weigend, of International Criminal Law and the procedure before the ICC. But with all due respect am I wrong in stating that the Rome Statute provides, expresis verbis, in Article 52 that ‘[t]he judges
shall, in accordance with this Statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, adopt, by an absolute majority, the Regulations of the Court necessary for its routine functioning?’ To a non expert such as myself it would seem that in this case Professor Weigend got it absolutely right and in fact the mistake might be yours. (If I am not mistaken Article 51 provides that the judges may even adopt provisional rules of procedure.)
Temu bi Francozi rekli “touché”, Američani pa “ouch”.
3. Na koncu drugega odstavka recenzije profesorja Weigenda pa najdemo ta stavek:
This exercise in rehashing the existing legal set-up is particularly unproductive since a large part of the volume consists in a reprint of the ICC Statute and its Rules of Procedure and Evidence (the Court’s Regulations are consistently ignored).
Je med opazko recenzenta v oklepaju in avtoričino (zmotno) kritiko recenzije iz pisma Weilerju kakšna vez? Hmmm…
