This article argues that the mixed tribunals of Sierra Leone and Cambodia provide important lessons about the problems and dilemmas in achieving the legitimacy that is necessary for transitional justice mechanisms to have a positive local impact. High hopes have been held for the mixed model, but experiences show that this model is no easy fix to the legitimacy problems faced by the international tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. By locating a tribunal in the post-conflict setting, new dilemmas of legitimacy may arise. This article suggests that transitional justice mechanisms should strike a balance between backward-looking and forward-looking justice, and between international and national participation in the tribunals, but this is not done by simply locating a tribunal in the affected country.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
`Agreement Between the United Nations and the Royal Government of Cambodia Concerning the Prosecution Under Cambodian Law of Crimes Committed During the Period of Democratic Kampuchea', 6 June 2003 (http://www.eccc.gov.kh/english/cabinet/agreement/5/Agreement_between_UN_and_RGC.pdf).
2.
Beetham, David, 1991. The Legitimation of Power. Atlantic Heights, NJ: Humanities Press International.
3.
Dickinson, Laura A., 2003. `The Promise of Hybrid Courts', American Journal of International Law97(2): 295-310.
4.
Dougherty, Beth K., 2004. `Right-Sizing International Criminal Justice: The Hybrid Experiment at the Special Court for Sierra Leone', International Affairs80(2): 311-328.
5.
Fritz, Nicole & Alison Smith, 2001-02. `Current Apathy for Coming Anarchy: Building the Special Court for Sierra Leone', Fordham International Law Journal25(2): 391-430.
6.
Hall, Laura R. & Nahal Kazemi, 2003. `Recent Developments: Prospects for Justice and Reconciliation in Sierra Leone', Harvard International Law Journal44(1): 287-300.
7.
Human Rights Watch (HRW), 2007. `UN: Summit on Africa Should Not Overlook Justice', 25 September (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/09/25/africa16942.htm).
8.
Huntington, Samuel P., 1991. The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.
9.
International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ), March 2006. `The Special Court for Sierra Leone Under Scrutiny'.
10.
Khmer Institute for Democracy, 2004. `Survey on the Khmer Rouge Regime and the Khmer Rouge Tribunal 2004' (http://www.bigpond.com.kh/users/kid/KRG-Tribunal.htm).
11.
Kritz, Neil J., 1996. `Coming to Terms with Atrocities: A Review of Accountability Mechanisms for Mass Violations of Human Rights', Law and Contemporary Problems59(4): 127-152.
12.
Linton, Suzannah, 2004. Reconciliation in Cambodia. Phnom Penh : Documentation Center of Cambodia.
13.
Meernik, James, 2005. `Justice and Peace? How the International Criminal Tribunal Affects Societal Peace in Bosnia', Journal of Peace Research42(3): 271-289.
14.
Münyas, Burcu, 2005. `Genocide in the Mind of the Cambodian Youth'. Phnom Penh, Cambodia: Youth for Peace, Peace Research and Publications.
15.
Orentlicher, Diane F., 2007. `"Settling Accounts" Revisited: Reconciling Global Norms with Local Agency', International Journal of Transitional Justice1(1): 10-22.
16.
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 17 July 1998 (A/CONF.183/9) (http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/about/officialjournal/Rome_Statute_English.pdf ).
17.
Sikkink, Kathryn & Carrie Booth Walling, 2007. `The Impact of Human Rights Trials in Latin America', Journal of Peace Research44(4): 427-445.
18.
Snyder, Jack & Leslie Vinjamuri , 2003/04. `Trials and Errors: Principle and Pragmatism in Strategies of International Justice', International Security28(3): 5-44.
19.
Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Human Rights in Cambodia, October 2005. `Continuing patterns of impunity in Cambodia'. United Nations Cambodia Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
20.
`Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone', 2002. 16 January (http://www.sc-sl.org/Documents/scslstatute.html).
21.
Stover, Eric & Harvey M. Weinstein , 2004. `Conclusion: A Common Objective, a Universe of Alternatives', in EricStover & HarveyM.Weinstein, eds, My Neighbor, My Enemy: Justice and Community in the Aftermath of Mass Atrocity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (323-342).
22.
Teitel, Ruti G., 2000. Transitional Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press
23.
Teitel, Ruti G., 2003. `Transitional Justice Genealogy', Harvard Human Rights Journal16 (Spring): 69-94.
24.
United Nations, 18 February 1999. `Report of the Group of Experts for Cambodia Established Pursuant to General Assembly Resolution 52/135' (http://www.unakrt-online.org/Docs/GA%20Documents/1999%20Experts%20Report.pdf).
25.
United Nations General Assembly, 31 March 2003. `Report of the Secretary-General on Khmer Rouge trials' (A/57/769).
26.
United Nations Security Council resolution S/RES/827, 25 May 1993 (UN S/RES/827).
27.
United Nations Security Council resolution S/RES/955, 8 November 1994 (UN S/RES/955).
28.
United Nations Security Council, 23 August 2004. `The Rule of Law and Transitional Justice in Conflict and Post-Conflict Societies', Report of the Secretary-General (S/2004/616).
29.
Urs, Tara, 2007. `Imagining Locally-Motivated Accountability for Mass Atrocities: Voices from Cambodia', SUR - International Journal on Human Rights4(7): 61-99.
30.
Vinjamuri, Leslie & Jack Snyder, 2004. `Advocacy and Scholarship in the Study of International War Crime Tribunals and Transitional Justice', Annual Review of Political Science7: 345-362.
31.
War Crimes Studies Center (WCSC), April 2005. `Interim Report on the Special Court for Sierra Leone'. UC Berkeley.
32.
Weinstein, Harvey M. & Eric Stover, 2004. `Introduction: Conflict, Justice and Reclamation', in Eric Stover & Harvey M. Weinstein, eds, My Neighbor, My Enemy: Justice and Community in the Aftermath of Mass Atrocity. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press (1-26).
33.
Zacklin, Ralph, 2004. `The Failings of Ad Hoc International Tribunals', Journal of International Criminal Justice2(2): 541-545.
