Abstract
Since 1945 responsibility for atrocity has been individualized, and international tribunals and courts have been given effective jurisdiction over it. This article argues that the move to individual responsibility leaves significant ‘excesses’ of responsibility for war crimes unaccounted for. When courts do attempt to recognize the collective nature of war crime perpetration, through the doctrines of ‘command responsibility’, ‘joint criminal enterprise’ and ‘state responsibility’, the application of these doctrines has, it is argued, limited or perverse effects. The article suggests that instead of expecting courts to allocate excesses of responsibility, other accountability mechanisms should be used alongside trials to allocate political (rather than legal) responsibility for atrocity. The mechanisms favored here are ‘Responsibility and Truth Commissions’, i.e. well-resourced non-judicial commissions which are mandated to hold to account individual and collective actors rather than simply to provide an account of past violence.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Political Science and International Relations,Philosophy
Reference44 articles.
1. Expanding the scope of post-conflict justice: Individual, state and societal responsibility for mass atrocity
2. Justice: The First Casualty of Truth?;Brody;Nation,2001
3. Trading Truth for Justice?: Reflections on South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission;Linfield;Boston Review,2000
4. The Perils of Global Legalism
Cited by
20 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献