International Justice

CJ354 Endicott College

Evaluating International Tribunals

Andrew’s post (below) raises the general question, addressed by both the Peskin and Barria and Roper articles, about how we should evaluate the legitimacy and effectiveness of international tribunals.  Peskin is critical of both the ICTY and ICTR for failing to achieve balanced prosecutions of individuals from warring parties on both sides, whereas Barria and Roper use the tangible measures of the extent to which the Tribunals have been able to apprehend elite perpetrators and the volume of indictments.

Are these fair and appropriate measures of  international tribunals’ successes and failures? What other measures should we consider?

Advertisements

One response to “Evaluating International Tribunals

  1. chrisumass February 4, 2011 at 8:21 pm

    I feel the fact that tribunals have managed to bring to trial over 70% of elite perpetrators in both the ICTY and ICTR is a fair measure of the tribunals success and the fact that the tribunals seem to have a narrow prosecution is also a fair measure of their failures. But inorder to really have these tribunals be a great success the nations involved in the conflict have to become more stable and take steps towards righting past wrongs in a fair manner. The ICTY and ICTR can’t search everywhere to find missing elite perpetrators and bring stability to the nations they are holding trials in. Also the tribunals can’t satisfy every individual affected by past crimes since many feelings of hatred have been stewing for ages and many previous conflicts have spurred on the events that occured in Rwanda and Yugoslavia. The trials are forced to choose a date that they will prosecute crimes from, and that is as effective as it can get, otherwise you might find yourself looking into crimes dating back hundreds of years ago.

%d bloggers like this: