Promoting
justice and
the rule of
law within
nations
emerging
from
violent
conflict
are seen
as keys to
ensuring
lasting
peace.

Promoting justice and the rule of law within nations emerging from violent conflict are increasingly seen as keys to ensuring lasting peace. The mechanisms used by the world community to promote post-conflict justice are still in their infancy. International organizations, donor governments, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have launched various attempts to ensure accountability for war crimes and human rights violations, as well as efforts to rehabilitate—or create—judicial systems in war-torn countries.

At times, however, these activities have suffered from a lack of planning, coordination, and cooperation. Helping these efforts to be more productive was one reason the Stanley Foundation recently brought together a group of experts for a conference titled "Accountability and Judicial Response: Building Mechanisms for Post-Conflict Justice." (See below.)

Participants in the conference evaluated a proposal to create a rapid-reaction legal assistance program to respond to urgent needs in post-conflict regions. They also discussed the extent to which post-conflict justice efforts should be an element of US foreign policy and considered universal guidelines for limiting the tendency of peace negotiators to accept impunity as a price for peace.

Yet according to the report, in order for peace-building efforts to succeed and national reconciliation to take hold, there must be a way to provide "a palpable sense of justice for citizens who have been the victims of war crimes and human rights violations."

The proposed rapid-reaction unit, provisionally named the International Legal Assistance Consortium (ILAC), would help meet these needs. ILAC would "enter the post-conflict environment simultaneously with, or as a close follow-on to, international peacekeeping and civilian policing operations to serve as the locus of international legal assistance activities, guiding as well as coordinating the various actors," said the report.

ILAC would be able to provide two different teams of legal experts depending on the needs of a nation. One, a judicial accountability response unit, would help governments find, arrest, and prosecute war criminals and human rights offenders. The other, a judicial development response unit, would assess the health of a nation's judicial system after a conflict and help rebuild those portions in greatest need. According to the report, these two units "need not always work in any one country simultaneously. Instead they would be deployed as necessary."

• It would be firmly committed to national sovereignty.
• It would not seek to promote a particular legal system, instead embracing strengths of different legal systems.
• It would be premised on the belief that developing judicial systems can only be undertaken with the consent of and in cooperation with national governments.
• It would be politically neutral.
• Its work would be conducted in a manner that is transparent to the international community.

Four areas of consideration for integrating justice and foreign policy were mentioned in the report:

• While US vital interests inevitably determine the degree of US involvement, defining those interests can be difficult. One participant asked rhetorically, "Is it always in the US interest to prevent genocide wherever it takes place? If not, how many people need to be killed before the United States will act?"
• Great attention should be given to the domestic priorities in those countries where post-conflict assistance is being given. Local residents there may put greater value on needs other than bringing war criminal and human rights violators to justice.
• The effect of advocating for justice on international coalition-building efforts should be considered.
• Justice should only be a high priority if fair and politically neutral processes have been established for identifying and apprehending alleged violators.

Participants were careful to note that any guidelines against impunity, if they are to be genuinely useful to peace negotiators, must strike a balance between upholding principles and accommodating practicalities. If absolute requirements are included, the document may be "merely hortatory as opposed to one that will actually have effect in practice," according to the report.

The report from this conference clearly states that the costs of compromising justice for peace are high. While allowing war criminals and human rights violators to escape accountability may have benefits in the immediate short term after a conflict, it undermines the chances for long-term, lasting peace. As the report concludes, "Recent experience has shown that a society's failure or inability to assign accountability for past wrongs breeds cynicism and prevents healing."

BACK TO COURIER ONLINE