Document Library

Key Text Trials and Errors: Principle and Pragmatism in Strategies of International Justice

Author: J Snyder, L Vinjamuri
Date: 2003
Size: 40 pages (158 KB)

Access full text: available online

Summary

How effective in preventing human rights abuses are tribunals for the perpetrators of atrocities? This article from International Security reviews recent post-conflict experiences and finds little evidence that trials successfully deter future violence. Prosecution according to universal standards risks causing more atrocities than it would prevent, because it pays insufficient attention to political realities. More pragmatic approaches based on political negotiation, selective amnesties and long-term institutional strengthening have a better chance of reducing tension and consolidating peaceful democracies.

The strategies of political actors can be classified into three broad logics: the logic of appropriateness, the logic of emotions and the logic of consequences. Each has different principles and will induce different actions. The logic of appropriateness concentrates on the binding nature of social norms and the necessity for universally applicable justice through trials. The logic of emotions stresses the need for emotional catharsis in the aftermath of social trauma, achieved through community exchanges like truth commissions. The logic of consequences applies a pragmatic approach to justice, weighing the social, political, and institutional outcomes of prosecutions versus amnesties.

Each of these three methods—trials, truth commissions, and amnesties—has been implemented in various post-conflict contexts throughout the world. The evidence supports some general findings as to their effectiveness and impact in different situations:

Trials tend to contribute to ending abuses only when spoiler groups are weak and the domestic infrastructure of justice is already somewhat established.
Truth commissions contribute to democratic consolidation only when a pro-democracy coalition holds power in a fairly well-institutionalised state.
Amnesties can pave the way for peace, but they require political backing and strong institutions to enforce their terms.

In addition to these direct effects, the emergence of international norms of justice also has long-term impacts. In the face of expanding jurisdiction and judicial power, nation-states have pushed back against the trend for supranational justice. States are asserting their sovereignty more strongly and taking a more active role in guiding the course of international justice. At the same time, advocacy groups that have devoted extensive resources and effort to the promotion of human rights are finding themselves the victims of their own successes. While they have convinced many politicians to incorporate these issues reluctantly into their platforms, implementation is weak and many prominent measures consequently fail, ultimately undermining public support for the ideals.

Political considerations and interests will inevitably play an important role in shaping the long-term trends of international justice. Proponents of strengthening international norms should therefore embrace the logic of consequences and pursue more pragmatic strategies to achieve their goals. Recommendations include the following:

Amnesties should be permitted when spoilers are strong and when the new regime can use an amnesty to decisively remove spoilers from power.
Pragmatic approaches must address the long-term goal of strengthening state capacity and institutionalising the rule of law in conflict-prone societies.
In cases where legal accountability is not barred by the danger of backlash from spoilers, trials should be carried out through local justice institutions in ways that strengthen their capacity, credibility, and legitimacy.
Overall, the international community should shift its focus from the past to the future; punishments should be designed to prevent future abuses rather than to satisfy a need for retribution for past wrongs.

Access full text: available online

Source: Snyder, J. and Vinjamuri, L., 2003, 'Trials and Errors: Principle and Pragmatism in Strategies of International Justice', International Security, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 5-44
Author: Jack Snyder , jls6@columbia.edu