International Response to Genocide

Transitional Justice

• Transitional justice is the umbrella term for efforts to reconcile war-torn nations and apportion blame for atrocities. They range from South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission to prosecutions by the International Criminal Court.
• The first real examples of these courts in action were the Nuremberg and Tokyo war crimes tribunals after World War 2.
• Since the 1990s, there have been transitional justice prosecutions in 48 countries.
• Most of the funding comes from the United Nations and Western donors.
• Transitional Justice is rooted in scrutiny (determining who should accept blame) and sanction (establishing punishment for it).
• Transitional justice is rooted in two core philosophies: that the world must end the culture of impunity and the importance of establishing the rule of law.
• There are two primary mechanisms for transitional justice today, international tribunals and the International Criminal Court.

Core Principles of Transitional Justice

(From US Holocaust Museum)

• Criminal Prosecutions of those responsible.
• Truth-seeking: activities ranging from investigations to the creation of museums after the events.
• Reparations: official apologies, financial payments, development of social services.
• Institutional Reform: changing the systems of government/bureaucracy/policy that permitted the genocide to happen in the first place.

International Tribunals

• International tribunals have been called for the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Cambodia, Sierra Leone, and other nations.
• The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda spent $2 billion dollars over almost 20 years, indicting 93 individuals and listening to the testimony of 3,000 witnesses. 61 people were convicted, leading to criticism of the tribunal. Critics, like Jean Pierre Dusingizemungu from Ibuka, an umbrella group for genocide survivors in Rwanda, says the ICTR has “delivered nothing for either the victims or the survivors of the genocide. Delivering no compensation for the horrific atrocities committed during the genocide planned, and perpetrated, by the government.”

The International Criminal Court

• The International Criminal Court was formed in 2002. Its mission is to ensure that those who commit genocide or war crimes should face trial, not in limited domestic courts which often lack the resources, but in highly specialized international courts.
• The ICC is designed to establish global norms against war crimes and help create legal structures for countries to eventually use.
• Seven countries voted against the treaty: China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar, the United States, and Yemen.

Criticism of Transitional Justice

• Critics have argued that these tribunals are just a form of “victor’s justice,” in which the defeated powers are punished and the victorious ones are not.
  • Senator Robert Taft, writing about the Nuremberg Trials, argued that the tribunals were characterized by a “spirit of vengeance and vengeance is seldom justice.”
  • Radhabinod Pal, the judge who represented India on the Tokyo tribunal, dismissed them as an imperialistic “victor’s charter” because they did not consider actions taken by the Americans like fire bombing of Japanese cities or the use of the atomic bomb.
  • The ICC may exacerbate these concerns. Created to answer criticisms of imperialism or bias, as of 2015, 36 of the 36 people it has indicted for war crimes  are from Africa.
• Other have argued that the focus on legalism is damaging. Judith N. Shklar, a lawyer whose family fled Europe in World War 2, has argued that putting justice ahead of politics prevents long-term problems that troubled societies will continue to face. She argues that political solutions are more effective.
  • For example, Professor Duncan McCargo argues that it was the constitution the US wrote for Japan and the occupation of the country that led to Japan’s reform, not the trials.
  • In South Africa, the focus on developing a working political system trumped punishment.
• The moral, practical, and political problems after a genocide make tribunals feel like solutions even if they are not.
  • Who gets punished in Rwanda, when tens of thousands participated?
  • What about the Tutsis who killed Hutus in retaliation?
• Criminalizing political opponents may undermine democracy.
• Some have argued that the presence of tribunals and the ICC makes dictators less likely to step down because they fear prosecution.