著者

湯澤(下谷内) 奈緒

出版者

一般財団法人 日本国際政治学会

雑誌

国際政治 (ISSN:04542215)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2013, no.171, pp.171_58-171_71, 2013-01-30 (Released:2014-12-13)

参考文献数

37

---

Building on a growing body of literature in international and comparative politics on transitional justice, this article examines the debate as to whether international criminal justice contributes to peace. The establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) has often been hailed as the culmination of international human rights standards that have been developed and advanced as norms following World War II. Yet the ICC’s prosecution activities have been criticized by those who argue that the threat of punishment causes dictators to cling to power, resulting in delaying the end of conflicts or a smooth transition to democracy. This article demonstrates how the “peace vs. justice” debate is rooted in opposing ideas for fostering international peace, both premised on the decentralized nature of international society, and how the tenets for their arguments are being shaken when faced with the reality of international human rights protection. Advocates for international criminal prosecution believe that strengthening centralized law enforcement authority beyond sovereign states will deter future atrocities. Given that a victor’s justice is no longer tolerated on one hand and that there is no world government in sight on the other, however, efforts to make credible the threat of prosecution would remain incomplete. Meanwhile those who criticize the ICC as an idealistic endeavor find the basis of international order in bargaining that occurs within sovereign states, but their logic is difficult to sustain because the ICC is making the promise of amnesty, considered crucial to strike a compromise, less credible. The article argues that international criminal prosecution should be understood as part of the international community’s efforts to intervene in and improve internal governance of weak, failing or collapsed states. The limits of the ICC lie not just in weak enforcement but in the very act of questioning the legitimacy of leaders who are caught in conflict. International human rights norms encourage democratized states to address past human rights violations committed under previous regimes; however, they do not solve the problem of how to deal with perpetrators who are currently engaged in violence during times of democratization and peace negotiations. To make international criminal prosecution a viable force for the prevention of future atrocities, it must be coupled with assistance to domestic civil society, which has to bear the consequences of these ultimate decisions.

著者

湯澤(下谷内) 奈緒

出版者

一般財団法人 日本国際政治学会

雑誌

国際政治 (ISSN:04542215)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2013, no.171, pp.171_58-171_71, 2013

---

Building on a growing body of literature in international and comparative politics on transitional justice, this article examines the debate as to whether international criminal justice contributes to peace. The establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) has often been hailed as the culmination of international human rights standards that have been developed and advanced as norms following World War II. Yet the ICC's prosecution activities have been criticized by those who argue that the threat of punishment causes dictators to cling to power, resulting in delaying the end of conflicts or a smooth transition to democracy.<br>This article demonstrates how the "peace vs. justice" debate is rooted in opposing ideas for fostering international peace, both premised on the decentralized nature of international society, and how the tenets for their arguments are being shaken when faced with the reality of international human rights protection. Advocates for international criminal prosecution believe that strengthening centralized law enforcement authority beyond sovereign states will deter future atrocities. Given that a victor's justice is no longer tolerated on one hand and that there is no world government in sight on the other, however, efforts to make credible the threat of prosecution would remain incomplete. Meanwhile those who criticize the ICC as an idealistic endeavor find the basis of international order in bargaining that occurs within sovereign states, but their logic is difficult to sustain because the ICC is making the promise of amnesty, considered crucial to strike a compromise, less credible.<br>The article argues that international criminal prosecution should be understood as part of the international community's efforts to intervene in and improve internal governance of weak, failing or collapsed states. The limits of the ICC lie not just in weak enforcement but in the very act of questioning the legitimacy of leaders who are caught in conflict. International human rights norms encourage democratized states to address past human rights violations committed under previous regimes; however, they do not solve the problem of how to deal with perpetrators who are currently engaged in violence during times of democratization and peace negotiations. To make international criminal prosecution a viable force for the prevention of future atrocities, it must be coupled with assistance to domestic civil society, which has to bear the consequences of these ultimate decisions.