Cobban, in "Think Again International Courts," challenges previously held assumptions about the relationship between international courts and human rights. Explain why Cobban sees courts and tribunals as ineffective for dealing with human rights violations (For example, what does she argue about international courts ability to achieve peace? Does she think war crimes prosecutions will deter future atrocities?) What paradigm is she most closely aligned with?

No. The 1993 and 1994 U.N. Security Council resolutions that established the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and its sister court for Rwanda (ICTR) both said the courts would contribute to the process of national reconciliation and to “the restoration and maintenance of peace." Sadly, that has not happened.

In The Hague, the ICTY’s most famous indictee, Slobodan Milosevic, has successfully used drawn-out courtroom appearances to perpetuate the feelings of hatred still harbored by many Serbs. Few Serbs, Croats, or Bosnians think that the ICTY has helped achieve reconciliation. The fragile peace in that region is the product of international troops and diplomacy, not judges and lawyers. In Rwanda, fewer than 36 percent of people polled in a 2002 survey said that the ICTR has promoted reconciliation in their country. And the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) announcement that it would investigate atrocities in Sudan has not ended violence there.

where is the passage

i cant solve it without knowing the passage

fighting to keep abortions legal