After WWII, the world realized the madness of mankind: although the Jewish genocide wasn't the first one in history, it was the first one which the international community became really aware of. In order to punish the terrible war crimes, 2 international military tribunals were created: one in Nuremberg and one in Tokyo. The idea of a necessary international criminal court was then developed: in 1948, the Convention for prevention and repression of genocide referred to the creation of an international court. However, this project was left aside; some believe that this was due to the context of the Cold War. It was only in 1993 that a new international court was created: the International Criminal tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague, created in order to prosecute serious crimes committed in former Yugoslavia since 1991.
[...] Establishing the facts: a path towards reconciliation - Building of history (through victims' testimony) Thanks to the trials and the testimony of victims, facts once subject to dispute have been established beyond reasonable doubt. The role played by victims is crucial: they are witnesses and therefore contribute to the establishment of the truth by talking to investigators and/or by giving testimony in court. Up till now, over 3,500 witnesses have told their story in court in former Yugoslavia and the prosecution has interviewed another 1,400 potential witnesses. [...]
[...] A relevant question is whether a “home grown” reconciliation (Luc Huyse) should be supported instead of an international justice. The example of the Gacaca (small society rooted tribunals elected by the local population in Rwanda) can show the importance of the establishment of local justice for a better reconciliation and a sense of concrete justice. International and national justice are both necessary and should be complementary instead of competing with each other. The dilemma faced by these courts Finally, the ICTs are facing an important dilemma. [...]
[...] However, these ad hoc tribunals cannot be indefinitely multiplied, this is why the creation of the International Criminal Court has been a huge step towards the establishment of international justice, and the ICC can inspire itself of the experience of the ICTs. [...]
[...] In my presentation I'll first show you the importance of the ICTs work in order to establish justice and to enable reconciliation and therefore reconstruction. Then, I'll focus on the main limits, criticisms and dilemmas of theses tribunals. The ICTs provide justice for reconciliation The end of impunity: strengthening the rule of law at an international scale - Facing the atrocity committed in these countries, the international community had the responsibility to react. The impact of the media on the public opinion was a crucial factor in favour of this reaction. [...]
[...] As the author Luc Huyse said: “silence and amnesia are the enemies of justice, post conflict justice serves to heal the wounds and to repair the private and public damage”. As Nelson Mandela declared, concerning the ICTR: am sure that I speak for the entire international community when I express the hope that this judgement will contribute to the long-term process of national reconciliation in Rwanda. For there can be no healing without peace; there can be no peace without justice; and there can be no justice without respect for human rights and rule of law.” The necessity of justice and reconciliation are underlined in one of the texts we read: the author, Scott Feil insisted on the fact that these elements are one of the 4 pillars of reconstruction. [...]
Bibliographie, normes APA
Citez le doc consultéLecture en ligne
et sans publicité !Contenu vérifié
par notre comité de lecture
