Global Scholar Alumni Association
Global Focus

Close Up: Global Faculty

An Interview with Richard Goldstone
November 2006

From 1994-2003, Justice Richard Goldstone was a member of the Constitutional Court of South Africa. He is Chancellor of the University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. From 1994 to 1996, Goldstone was Chief Prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. He has also served as Co-Chairman of the Independent International Commission on Kosovo, Chairman of the Commission of Inquiry regarding Public Violence and Intimidation, and President of the National Institute for Crime Prevention and the Rehabilitation of Offenders. He is a member of the United Nations Independent Investigation Committee into the Iraq Oil for Food Program (the Volcker Committee). Justice Goldstone has received many human rights awards and has lectured on human rights and South African constitutional issues at universities around the world.

Global Focus: Professor Goldstone, how was your experience growing up in a country divided by apartheid?

Goldstone: I grew up in a typical white upper middle class home. Most children accept the society in which they live, so it didn't seem particularly strange to me that black South Africans were in more menial positions. In my childhood I never came across black South Africans except as domestic workers and people who put gas in my father's car, my mother's car. But that changed when I went to University.

Global Focus: When was the first time you got engaged in fighting against discrimination? At University?

Goldstone: Almost immediately when I went to University I met black students as equals, and that made me realize the terrible oppression that black people had to suffer in my country.

Global Focus: Were you engaged in student activities?

Goldstone: I quickly became involved in student activities, and at the end of the first year in my undergraduate arts degree I was elected to the students' council. It was then mainly involved in fighting apartheid—particularly the attempts to impose apartheid on the "open universities". 

Global Focus: Were students' positions taken into account in South Africa?

Goldstone: Not by the apartheid government. They regarded us as a nuisance.

Global Focus: Could you mobilize many students?

Goldstone: Well, we mobilized thousands of students, administration and faculty to march. The student body was mostly against apartheid and, importantly, the University administration and the faculties were also with us, so the university was very solid.

Global Focus: Do you think the young generation is engaged in fighting for social development?

Goldstone: In most societies it is the young people who lead revolutions, whether peaceful or unfortunately sometimes violent. The hope for the spread of democracy is largely in the hands of the young.

Global Focus: If you could give an advice for the young generation in South Africa and in the world, what would you say?

Goldstone: My advice would be to learn about the importance of human rights and to recognize the dignity of all people.

Global Focus: How did you become a judge?

Goldstone: Unexpectedly, I was appointed as a judge when I was 40. That was a very difficult decision, whether to accept a position on the apartheid bench. However, I was encouraged to do that particularly by friends who were involved in our civil rights movement. They thought it was important to have sympathetic judges, anti-apartheid judges, on the bench. There were a few of us, and we were appointed because the judges were not feared by the government—the great majority was in favor of apartheid, and in any event, we had no constitution and we had a supreme parliament. So what judges said on Monday, Parliament could undo on Tuesday. 

Global Focus: Did the politicians have an influence on the court decisions as well?

Goldstone: No, the judges were truly independent—they were not interfered with.

Global Focus: I have read that you made some decisions against the apartheid regime, for example allowing black people to live in white areas. Were you criticized by the politicians?

Goldstone: There was a great deal of criticism, clearly, in the conservative media particularly. The government publicly opposed the decision, but privately they were quite pleased to be able to blame a judge for making it. The attitude was that they could do nothing about it because the judge had spoken; but of course that wasn't true. They could have changed the legislation. But they were boasting to the international community that South Africa had an independent bench and that politicians didn't interfere, and that's why they didn't get involved in that issue.

Global Focus: I presume by that time you had your family and your daughters. Were you at any time afraid for your safety or your family's safety?

Goldstone: No, that came later, when I was involved in investigating violence and intimidation during our transition from apartheid to democracy—from 1991-1994. That was the period when I was under serious death threats and where I was concerned about my family. But fortunately by that stage my daughters were already out of the home. 

Global Focus: Were they abroad?

Goldstone: One was abroad and one was married and living in Johannesburg.

Global Focus: During the transition from Frederick de Klerk to Nelson Mandela, you played a big role in the Commission of Inquiry Regarding Public Violence and Intimidation, which later came to be known as Goldstone Commission. What was the most difficult part of the work in that commission?

Goldstone: Well, the most difficult part was in the beginning, finding evidence to establish whether government forces—whether the police and the army—were involved in trying to stop the transition, and whether they were the reason for much of the violence in the country. You know, during our transition over 10,000 people were killed in political violence, and much of that was caused, as we eventually proved, by the South African security forces. They were provoking the violence secretly. And it was really difficult, firstly, for me to believe that this was being done by the leaders of the police and the army. But I was given unusual powers by Parliament. I could subpoena people, we could search and seize documents, and that was important. The commission was also important because it kept our nation calm at a time when there could have been a bloodbath and when the negotiations could have failed. By having quick investigations and public hearings within two or three days of violent events, it helped keep calm in the community. 

Global Focus: Do you think the transition was successful? How is the situation in South Africa today? Are black people genuinely integrated or are they still discriminated against?

Goldstone: Absolutely. We are fortunate in a way that we had an oppressed majority that's now in government. So it's in everybody's interest now to accept equality and a decent society. And people have changed really quickly, and to me it's a great joy to live in South Africa now because the oppression of the past is no longer with us. I can see my grandchildren growing up in a normal society. 

Global Focus: And are black people wealthy as well?  Financially at least?

Goldstone: Oh yes, more and more. The problem is that reforms take time to filter down to the majority of the people.

Global Focus: Following your work on the Commission you were nominated to serve as a Justice of the Constitutional Court of South Africa. What was the most challenging experience while you were a Justice?

Goldstone: Well the most challenging part of the court's work was learning about constitutional law. This was new. We never had a constitution, so not one of the eleven justices had ever really studied it from an academic point of view. We all came from human rights backgrounds, all eleven of the original justices, and those who have come since have all been involved in pushing for human rights and supporting human rights. But that was the challenge—to build up a completely new jurisprudence under a new constitution. All the cases were difficult and important.

Global Focus: Were you also engaged in the drafting of the constitution?

Goldstone: No, I was in The Hague.

Global Focus: What was your most satisfying decision in the Constitutional Court of South Africa?

Goldstone:  You know it's difficult to choose any one; they were all exciting, all new. I wouldn't choose one above the other. Except what was perhaps the most important single issue was the whole process whereby we had to certify the final constitution after the interim constitution was in operation for two years. We were required to certify whether the new constitution was in compliance with a number of principles contained in the interim constitution. In the first hearing, we held unanimously that they were not. The Constitutional Assembly had to re-draft it and then we certified it after a second hearing. It was the fist time in history, I think, that a constitutional court has had, in effect, to decide whether a constitution is constitutional. And that was crucially important because had it failed, it would have set back the whole negotiation process and possibly fatally. So it was a huge responsibility.

Global Focus: Turning to your international career, what was your reaction when you were asked to be the first prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia?

Goldstone: Well I was surprised at being approached because I had never prosecuted. I knew nothing about humanitarian law, and I new very little about the former Yugoslavia. But the United Nations and the judges were desperate because it was already 15 months after the Tribunal was set up, and they had no prosecutor. And 8 nominees of the Secretary General were vetoed in the Security Council. They came to South Africa because Nelson Mandela had recently been appointed as our first democratic president, and it was felt if they could find somebody of whom he approved and whom he supported, the Security Council would agree, and that's what happened. So he pushed me to do it. 

Global Focus: Could you compare your experience in South Africa and your experience in the International Tribunal?

Goldstone: Well they were completely different, but I will say one thing that I learned in my South African commission that was really useful when I went to The Hague was learning to deal with the media and appreciating how important it was for the credibility of an institution to have wide media support.

Global Focus: What exactly were you in charge of in the International Tribunal for former Yugoslavia? Who were you investigating?

Goldstone: Well, we began not knowing who to investigate. But we had evidence from the commission of experts that was set up by the Security Council in 1993 and that was very helpful. Our policy was to try to investigate the most serious offenders, the guiltiest—the leaders.

Global Focus: What was the most difficult decision you had to reach in the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia?

Goldstone: Well, the most difficult is to protect witnesses, to protect victims. I think it's important to always bear in mind that the victims are the main customers of justice. But there were so many difficulties—it was difficult setting up an International Criminal Tribunal for the first time ever in history. The UN had never had an International Criminal Tribunal assembled with a competent staff from all around the world. And that was really difficult.

Global Focus: Was there any decision the Tribunal reached that you found frustrating?

Goldstone: Any decision of the tribunal? No. In what way?

Global Focus: For instance, were you frustrated by decisions of the Tribunal whether or not to prosecute a specific individual?

Goldstone: No, but they didn't. During my period there was never a case that I had problems with. 

Global Focus: Looking back, do you think an International Tribunal was the best solution for Yugoslavia?

Goldstone: Yes, there was no other way because certainly Serbia and Croatia were oppressive societies, they had dictatorial leaders, and justice would have been completely neglected if there wasn't an International Tribunal.

Global Focus: Was there some kind of community involvement from the people from former Yugoslavia?

Goldstone: Yes, there were brave, really courageous human rights activists in Serbia and Croatia who were helpful. Many of them stayed there, many of them went into exile. 

Global Focus: You were also a prosecutor in the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. How would you compare both tribunals and their achievements?

Goldstone: The initial difficulty with the Rwanda Tribunal was that the government that requested it (Rwanda) decided eventually to reject it and cast the single negative vote in the Security Council (where in 1994 it held one of the ten non-permanent seats). But, to its credit, the government of Rwanda did cooperate with me in helping to establish the Prosecutor's office in their capital city, Kigali. Both tribunals were substantially successful in bringing the guiltiest to justice and, most importantly, in putting an end to the false denials of the commission of serious war crimes.

Global Focus: Do you believe the situation in South Africa during the Apartheid regime could be characterized as a war?  Could it be submitted to an International Tribunal?

Goldstone: No, it was not a war. Apartheid was correctly held by the United Nations to constitute a crime against humanity. And, as such, had there been an international criminal court with jurisdiction the Apartheid leaders could have been indicted. International law does not require a war situation to exist for the commission of genocide or crimes against humanity.

Global Focus: Do you believe that the model of the specialized ad hoc tribunals is a good model?

Goldstone: The ad hoc tribunals? No, I think it's the end of the ad hoc tribunals. You don't need them any more with a permanent international criminal court. And that's been established, I think, for example, by the reference by the Security Council of the Darfur situation. It would be ridiculous and waste of money to set up another ad hoc tribunal when you've got an international court there, willing and able to get involved immediately, with no delay.

Global Focus: What do you consider the most pressing issue in the current state of international criminal law?

Goldstone: I think the most pressing issue in international criminal justice at the moment is the implementation of orders of the international criminal court. Enforceability is a critical issue and a very difficult one. How do you get countries—even countries that have ratified the Rome treaty—how do you get them to comply with their obligations under the treaty? It's a problem I think that the prosecutor of that international criminal court's having now. How do you get the leaders of the Lord's Resistance army arrested? They're being protected by countries where they are. The court hasn't got its own army, its own police force. It has to rely on cooperation from governments.

Global Focus: And now, my last question: What are the professional achievements you are most proud of?

Goldstone: I think being a member of South Africa's first ever Constitutional Court. That's the greatest achievement, as far as I'm concerned, in my career. But I've been very fortunate—the last 15 or 16 years have been extremely exciting, getting involved in the international community with the ad hoc tribunals. And of course I'm very much enjoying my new career—teaching. 

Global Focus: And we are very much enjoying having you as a teacher—as a visiting professor at NYU. Thank you very much for the interview.

Goldstone:  Thank you, that was great.