In commemoration of International Criminal Justice Day, it is worth pausing to reflect on the evolution and impact of the field in just two decades. Of course the history goes back much further, and it remains painstakingly challenging to realize in many contexts, but it is without question that accountability is now a key feature of the global response to atrocity.
With the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in 1993 and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in 1994, to the passage of the Rome Statute in 1998, major advances in the field have been made. These international courts paved the way for hybrid courts that brought international and domestic laws, judges, and lawyers together. Examples of these courts include the establishment of the Special Court for Sierra Leone in 2002 and the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia in 2004. The field has evolved further with the move toward domestic prosecutions that have international support, such as the Bosnian War Crimes Chamber, which began work in 2005.
The move toward domestic processes is important. Given contexts with limited resources and high need, a focus on support for domestic decision-making and ownership about accountability priorities cannot be under-estimated. The related field of transitional justice can be helpful in this regard. Transitional justice — a field aimed at addressing a legacy of atrocity often through measures like trials, truth commissions, and reparations – has been imperfect in its support of the priorities of a population that has experienced abuse. But it has raised the profile to some degree on the need for accountability mechanisms that not only punish perpetrators, but also consider the needs of victims and communities affected by violence.
Advocates of international criminal justice must also take on the question of atrocity prevention. Although many rightfully argue for the need to set narrow expectations for justice mechanisms, we also know that the likelihood of a recurrence of violence in contexts that have experienced atrocity is high. This challenge requires prevention be at the forefront of the minds of those advocating for, designing, and implementing accountability processes, as well as other efforts undertaken in post-atrocity contexts.
Featured image credit: Justice by Jason Taellious. CC-BY-SA 2.0 via Flickr.
Thanks for the post . Just worth to mention , the very contribution of the ” Universal jurisdiction ” to international justice ( differentiated of course , from international or semi international courts ) . The convention against torture , contributed to the acceleration of use or exercise of national courts , for bringing to justice for international crimes ( The case of Pinochet for example in the house of Lords , UK , and so forth…. ) .
Thanks
The related field of transitional justice can be helpful in this regard.
Unless the ICC Tries the amerikan presidents from Woodrow Wilson forward, the Israeli Prime Ministers, obviously some in absentia, then the convicted National Socialists of Germany’s Third Reich should be issued apologies and their convictions overturned for true justice is not just for the victors is it?