My book is in the Peace Palace Library , and ICC library at the Hague...
It is in Arabic, and the English version will be published at Fall 2013.
Summary of
the book:
The book is entitled: The dilemma in
maintaining a balance between justice and peace-building: the international
criminal tribunals as case studies.
In fact, what
led me to choose this title, is the Special Tribunal for Lebanon and the
tension it made in the Lebanese society. I wanted to get an objective vision
and idea about the international tribunals and their impact on peace building
in the societies they are supposed to serve.
The main
objective of this book is to study the following thesis:
The UN Security Council Resolution no.
827, issued on May 25, 1993, spoke of the determination to create a special
international tribunal to try and prosecute persons responsible for serious
violations of international humanitarian law in the former Yugoslavia,
stressing that its creation would bring justice that will contribute to the
restoration and maintenance of peace ( resolution 827 \ 1993, Preamble, p 1).
So,
the book stresses on the question that after twenty years the establishment of ICTY
and the other international courts, do the practical cases prove the validity
of this argument?.
The
first two theoretical parts of the book discuss the development of the
international humanitarian law, the new and challenging concept of R2p, the
diverse mechanisms of transitional justice, the development of the
international criminal law and the long historical journey of the foundation of
the international courts from Nuremberg to the Hague.
As
for the practical framework, it was necessary to identify the concept of
peace-building, through measurable variables that were determined as follows:
Peace-building assumes:
First: stability, security and the mitigation
of violence.
Second: democracy and human rights.
Third: the coexistence and building trust among
citizens and between them and the state.
Fourth: the rule of law.
The
main findings of the study:
1- Were the international criminal tribunals
able to achieve their goals in bringing peace to the societies?
Based
on surveys, reports and interviews, we found out that, excluding the Cambodian
case, the international criminal tribunals weren't able to contribute to peace
building in the societies. In some cases, they hindered the peace talks, and in
most cases they lacked the trust of the people.
2- For an answer to the basic dilemma, does
criminal justice lead to peace?
In this study, we found out that Criminal
justice is not a definite path that leads to peace, or a prerequisite means
that must be provided for a community to feel secure, stable and begins to pave
its road to peace and reconciliation.
Conversely,
the presence of peace - even in the negative sense - may allow the realization
of justice and to bring the perpetrators to justice, compensate for the victims
and reserve their rights and, of course, acknowledge their suffering.
3- The criminal justice mechanisms can
contribute to the peace-building process only if accompanied by other political
mechanisms, and thus any isolated mechanism alone cannot achieve long lasting
peace.
4- The cases showed clearly that the best
solution for a society is to let the political solution lead the mechanisms of
justice not the contrary, and it should certainly be a population-based
solution.
5- For the dilemma between amnesty and
accountability, the study showed that trials alone or amnesty alone is not able
to achieve peace. Both of them need to be accompanied by other mechanisms to
achieve peace or at least, to achieve acceptable reconciliation in a society.
Recommendations:
To the international community
- The international community, should not
impose its will on the people like a
"trustee, but respect for the right
of peoples to self-determination and their right to choose the best means to
achieve peace in their country.
- the international community should develop
non biased mechanisms of accountability, and disseminate awareness of justice
within local communities. it is not enough that human rights NGOs glorify
achieving justice, but it should be
clear for the people and the victims that justice is settled.
- It should be noted that a criminal justice
is just a way to prosecute the perpetrators, and it should not imply to be a
roadmap to building peace, promoting democracy and human rights and achieving
reconciliation in a society as it is referred to by many international
organizations and the UN secretary general.
- The cases show that the best international
courts are the hybrid ones, but they should be settled in the country itself.
In order to overcome this mistrust and other difficulties, the international
community must place greater emphasis on strengthening the national justice
systems of the countries where atrocities have occurred, through the foundation
of extraordinary chambers or appointing international judges to help and
monitor the trials at the national level.
To the International Criminal Court
1 -The surveys showed that the people of the
countries where the atrocities took place, trust their corrupted courts more
than the international ones, so it is necessary that the ICC develops its
outreach strategy and makes more effort in networking with the people.
2 - The complexity of the judicial process and
the length of the period of detention and trials, in addition to the
"compromises" the court had to do to maintain states' cooperation
etc.. all these issues have raised the skepticism about the International Justice,
so the ICC - like ICTY and ICTR- should
set a completion strategy for each case. It should not be permissible to
continue trials forever.
3 - the ICC should use the concept of
"positive complementarity"
effectively, so it may - under its supervision- shift the cases to the
national courts when the state becomes "capable" and
"willing" to carry out its responsibilities for prosecution of
perpetrators within the jurisdiction of the court.
