KFG Workshop | Universalism or Particular Interests? A Historical Reassessment of the Ad Hoc Criminal Tribunals and the International Criminal Court in the 1990s and 2000s

In cooperation with Collegium Carolinum

Venue: Collegium Carolinum, Hochstraße 8, München

 

The long 1990s were the decade that saw the revival of international criminal law. In 1993, the UN Security Council established the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). This was followed a year later by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). In 1997, negotiations began on the establishment of a hybrid Khmer Rouge tribunal. In 1998, 120 states agreed on the Rome Statute, and in 2002, the Permanent International Criminal Court (ICC) was opened in The Hague. In the same year, the UN and Sierra Leone agreed to establish a joint hybrid court.

International criminal law promised a path to resolving armed conflicts that would secure peace. Historical and recent genocides, war crimes, and crimes against humanity in international wars and civil wars were to be prosecuted under international criminal law. The trials were intended to serve the purpose of convicting the perpetrators, publicly addressing and historically coming to terms with past injustices, democratizing post-conflict societies, and generally deterring the committing of crimes under international law. The International Criminal Court, for its part, should prevent future international crimes and combat global impunity. It was seen as a breakthrough in global justice, as the biggest and most comprehensive step towards the universalization of international criminal law.

The workshop asks what remains of the universalist goals in light of the current crisis in international criminal law. A historical analysis of international criminal law institutions in the 1990s and early 2000s will contribute to a reassessment of the early phase of the establishment of the international criminal law regime. The aim is not to provide a normative assessment, but rather to situate the revival of international criminal law in the 1990s in its historical context and subject it to critical historicization.

 

The following questions will be addressed at the workshop:

• What new historical insights are there into the establishment of the ad hoc criminal tribunals and the International Criminal Court? What ideas, groups of actors, and interests played a role?

• What new insights are there into the negotiations, the controversies, the state actors, and the international law experts involved?

• How did international, national, and local groups of actors supporting international criminal law relate to each other? What legitimate criticisms were raised, by whom, and how were they addressed?

• What role did actors from the Global South play?

• How were the ad hoc tribunals situated in civil society? Were there any local grassroots movements? What role did victim groups play?

• What influence did the media have? How were the trials reported? How much public attention did the criminal courts receive?

• What was the composition of the tribunal and prosecution staff? Who were the defendants' lawyers? How international was the composition of the actors in the international criminal law institutions? What positions did women hold in the tribunals?

• What crimes were tried? Was there a focus on certain crimes? Which crimes were overlooked or not dealt with, and if so, for what reasons?

• What was the composition of the group of defendants? What about the group of witnesses? What significance did victim witnesses and expert witnesses have?

• How was the history of the conflicts, the warring parties, the states, the affected population groups, etc. dealt with in the international criminal trials? How was the history of international criminal law itself positioned? How, for example, were the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials referred to?

• What was the relationship between the individual criminal courts? What coordinating role did the United Nations administrative apparatus play?

• Can we speak of a double standard in the proceedings or in the establishment of the ad hoc tribunals? Did particular and/or political interests play a role in the preliminary stages? Did the criminal courts have a power-political function?

 

The workshop aims to provide a historical reassessment of international criminal law institutions in the 1990s and 2000s. In addition to the contemporary historical questions outlined above, questions relating to legal history, historical political science, historical sociology, cultural studies, legal anthropology, and social anthropology are also welcome.

More information to follow.