Views of the Future of the Field of International Justice: a Scenarios Project Based on Expert Consultations
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
American University International Law Review Volume 33 Issue 4 Article 5 2018 Views of the Future of the Field of International Justice: A Scenarios Project Based on Expert Consultations Jennifer Trahan New York University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/auilr Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Trahan, Jennifer (2018) "Views of the Future of the Field of International Justice: A Scenarios Project Based on Expert Consultations," American University International Law Review: Vol. 33 : Iss. 4 , Article 5. Available at: https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/auilr/vol33/iss4/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in American University International Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. VIEWS OF THE FUTURE OF THE FIELD OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE: A SCENARIOS PROJECT BASED ON EXPERT CONSULTATIONS JENNIFER TRAHAN* OVERVIEW OF POTENTIAL SCENARIOS OF THE FIELD IN TWENTY YEARS...............................................................843 METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................845 I. SCENARIO #1: THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT AS THE DOMINANT INSTITUTION OF THE FUTURE....................................................................................848 A. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR SCENARIO #1............................849 B. DETAILS OF FINDINGS FOR SCENARIO #1 ...............................850 1. Proponents of Scenario #1 and Rationales .....................850 a) Designed as the Permanent Institution for Atrocity Crimes Prosecutions ................................................850 b) Reluctance of States to Fund Further Ad Hoc Tribunals..................................................................851 c) Inefficiency of Creating Multiple New Tribunals.....852 d) Fragmentation of the Law Through Multiple Tribunals..................................................................852 e) Combining Scenarios #1 and #3................................853 2. Challenges to Making Scenario #1 Effective ..................854 a) Increasing Effectiveness and Efficiency (Responding to Cost Criticisms)..............................855 b) Expanding Institutional Capacity..............................858 c) Increasing State Cooperation.....................................859 d) UN Security Council Follow-Up and Funding .........861 e) Increasing Ratifications/Universality ........................864 f) Adding Crimes to the ICC’s Subject-Matter Jurisdiction...............................................................869 g) Serving as a Model of “Best Practices” ....................870 3. Skeptics of Scenario #1 ...................................................870 a) Capacity.....................................................................871 837 838 AM. U. INT’L L. REV. [33:4 b) Cost of the ICC..........................................................872 c) Inability to Prosecute Large Numbers of Individuals from Any One Situation/ Crimes as Vast as Those Occurring in Syria............................873 d) World Powers Remaining Outside the Rome Statute System .........................................................875 e) “Push-Back”/Non-Cooperation .................................876 f) Implosion of the ICC (Or the Field of International Justice).....................................................................881 II. SCENARIO #2: ADDITIONAL TRIBUNALS AS THE DOMINANT APPROACH OF THE FUTURE........................881 A. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR SCENARIO #2............................882 1. Proponents of Scenario 2 and Rationales .......................884 a) Efficiency of Hybrid Tribunals .................................885 b) Successful Outreach of Hybrid Tribunals .................886 c) Contributions to Capacity-Building and Local Ownership................................................................887 d) Too Many Atrocity Crimes Not to Have Additional Hybrid Tribunals ...................................888 e) Hybrids Better at Resisting Political Pressure than Purely Domestic Institutions, Adding Neutrality and Objectivity ........................................................889 f) Demonstrating Rule of Law at Work.........................890 2. What Form of Hybrid Tribunal is the Model for the Future?...........................................................................890 a) Freestanding Hybrid Model.......................................891 b) Hybrid Chamber Within an Existing Court System..892 c) Hybrid Converting to a National War Crimes Chamber...................................................................893 d) Each Situation is Context-Specific so Selection of One Model is Inappropriate.....................................894 e) Funding not Through Voluntary Contributions.........895 3. Skeptics of Scenario 2 .....................................................896 a) Cost of Hybrid Tribunals and Rebuttal of Criticism ..................................................................897 b) Difficulties of Local Ownership in Terms of Preserving Independence and Impartiality ..............901 c) Victim Dissatisfaction at High Costs, Slow Speed, and Limited Number Prosecuted .............................902 4. Can a Case Be Made for Future Regional Criminal Chambers? .....................................................................903 5. Can a Case Be Made for Future Ad Hoc Tribunals?.......904 III. SCENARIO #3: COMPLEMENTARITY/DOMESTIC 2018] FUTURE OF THE FIELD OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE 839 PROSECUTIONS AS THE DOMINANT APPROACH OF THE FUTURE...........................................................................907 A. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR SCENARIO #3............................908 B. DETAILED FINDINGS FOR SCENARIO #3..................................910 1. Proponents of Scenario #3 and Rationales .....................910 2. Skeptics of Scenario #3 ...................................................913 a) Difficulties of Fairly Prosecuting High-Level Perpetrators Through National Courts.....................914 b) Difficulty Prosecuting One’s Own Atrocity Crimes......................................................................916 c) Differentiating Lack of Capacity from Lack of Will..........................................................................917 d) Significant Work Needed to Build Complementarity/Domestic Capacity......................917 3. Does Complementarity/Domestic Capacity-Building Need to be Centrally Coordinated? ...............................918 a) Current Approach ......................................................918 b) Whether to Centrally Coordinate Complementarity/Capacity-Building.......................922 c) What Body, if Any, Should Centrally Coordinate Complementarity/Capacity-Building.......................925 IV. ADDITIONAL SCENARIOS..................................................926 V. COMBINING SCENARIOS.....................................................929 CONCLUSION ...............................................................................934 APPENDIX A..................................................................................936 APPENDIX B..................................................................................939 SIGNIFICANCE.............................................................................939 TIMELINESS/COMPELLING RATIONALE AND UNIQUE HISTORICAL MOMENT ..........................................................939 SOURCES OF INFORMATION & DATA ..........................................940 The field of international justice has evolved dramatically over the last two and a half decades. After an initial start with prosecutions before the International Military Tribunals at Nuremberg and the International Military Tribunal for the Far East held in Tokyo, the field languished until the early 1990s when it resurfaced with the creation of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY)1 and the International Criminal Tribunal for * Associate Clinical Professor, The Center for Global Affairs, NYU-SPS. Erin 840 AM. U. INT’L L. REV. [33:4 Rwanda (ICTR). Thereafter, a number of “hybrid” tribunals were created including: The Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL); a hybrid State Court in Bosnia-Herzegovina; the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) as well as hybrid chambers in Kosovo, East Timor, Senegal, and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL).2 Most of these tribunals have concluded or are finishing their work prosecuting primarily high- and/or mid-level perpetrators of crimes committed in their respective situation countries.3 Meanwhile, the Rome Statute created a permanent International Criminal Court (ICC)4 to prosecute atrocity crimes. It currently has 123 States Parties5 with some prosecutions completed and others in progress and numerous situations at both the Preliminary Examination and Investigation phases.6 Furthermore, increasingly, there are also domestic courts tackling war crimes Lovall provided research assistance and Amber Lewis filmed the interviews of most expert participants. See infra Appendix A. The following Center for Global Affairs students/graduates transcribed audio/visual recordings of interviews: Taylor Ackerman, Genesis