International Justice: The Wider Context

The establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) represents a major step forward in international efforts to prevent and punish crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide, and to deliver justice for the victims of those crimes. Click here to find out more about the ICC. But the ICC is not an isolated institution: it is the cornerstone of an emerging international system designed to deter such crimes and to respond effectively where they do occur

In 1993, the UN Security Council established an ad hoc International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), to prosecute persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the former Yugoslavia since 1991. Click here to find out more about the ICTY. In 1994, a similar tribunal was established to try those responsible for the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 (ICTR). Click here to find out more about the ICTR

More recently, moves have been made to establish courts that are a joint endeavour of the international community and the country concerned, and are typically made up of both international and national judges. One of these so-called “mixed” tribunals is in the process of being established in Sierra Leone. Click here to find out more about the Special Court for Sierra Leone. Discussions between the U.N. and the Cambodian Government regarding the establishment of a special court to deal with the atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge, stalled in February 2002, were revived in December 2002. Click here to find out more about the process for establishing a special court for Cambodia. Special mixed international / East Timorese panels were established in 2000 to try those accused of serious violations following the 1999 referendum on the independence of East Timor from Indonesia. Click here to find out more about the Special Panels in East Timor

The Lawyers Committee for Human Rights believes that justice is best carried out at the national level, wherever this is possible, and that the priority is to enable national systems to effectively administer justice. This is why the International Justice Program works to ensure that national courts are able to fulfill their obligations to hold perpetrators of crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide to account. Click here to find out more about what LCHR does to promote national implementation. Nevertheless obstacles to the effective administration of justice remain in many countries. Click here to find out more about national accountability in Kosovo

Another important component of an integrated and effective international justice system is that all states play their part in bringing perpetrators of international crimes to justice, even if they have no connection to the crime concerned. International law permits or even obliges states to investigate and prosecute those suspected of such crimes based on the principle of universal jurisdiction. One example of the exercise of universal jurisdiction is the attempted prosecution by Spain and several other European countries of Chile’s former dictator Augusto Pinochet for torture committed in Chile. Click here for more about the Pinochet case

Criminal prosecutions are not the only method of bringing to account perpetrators of crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide. In some countries, notably the United States, private or civil actions for damages can be brought by victims against their alleged abusers. In the U.S., tens of such actions have been brought under the Alien Tort Claims Act and the Torture Victim Protection Act. Click here to find out more about the Romagoza case and the cases of the four American Churchwomen. Under this legislation, cases have been brought not only against individuals but also against corporations. Click here to see LCHR news about corporate accountability.

Criminal or civil trials are not the only means of responding to atrocities such as crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide. Some countries, particularly countries in transition following conflict or repression, respond by establishing mechanisms aimed at establishing the truth (truth and reconciliation commissions and like bodies), providing reparation to victims (national compensation schemes or other reparation initiatives) and carrying out institutional reforms aimed at ensuring that such violations never occur again.

U.S. Law & Security | Asylum in the U.S. | Human Rights Defenders | Human Rights Issues | International Justice |
International Refugee Policy | Workers Rights | Media Room | About Us | Contribute | Jobs | Contact Us | Publications | Search | Site Map | Home