Criminal accountability at what cost? Norm conflict, UN peace operations and the International Criminal Court

Abstract

How do international organisations (IOs) balance norms that have conflicting prescriptions? In this article, we build on the literature on norm contestation and norm conflict to identify four ways in which IOs might respond to norm conflicts: (1) consistent norm prioritisation; (2) ad hoc norm prioritisation; (3) balanced norm reconciliation and (4) imbalanced norm reconciliation. How IOs are more likely to respond, we argue, depends on the salience of the norm conflict and the relative strength of the conflicting norms. We illustrate our argument by investigating the norm conflicts that the United Nations (UN) encountered between traditional UN peacekeeping norms and the norm of international criminal accountability in the context of assistance by UN peace operations to the International Criminal Court. Distinguishing between behaviour and discourse as well as headquarters and field levels, we argue that the UN’s response strategies have been largely successful at reducing the tensions generated by the norm conflicts, but that in the longer term they run the risk of both undermining the international criminal accountability norm and damaging the acceptance and credibility of UN peace operations.

International incentives for women’s rights in dictatorships

“…4.See also Buitelaar and Hirschmann (2020) on how the emerging norm of international criminal accountability challenges traditional peacekeeping norms.…”

Protect and punish: norm linkage and international responses to mass atrocities

“…This pattern departs from the pre-ICC practice of initiating prosecutions after the cessation of violence. 1 It has persisted although investigations in ongoing conflicts have been found to face practical impediments (Unger and Wierda, 2009) and, in some cases, complicate peace processes (Ku and Nzelibe, 2006; Rodman, 2011; Snyder and Vinjamuri, 2003) and peacekeeping (Buitelaar and Hirschmann, 2021). Second, ICC interventions have often – but not always – occurred alongside other forms of intervention, specifically sanctions and military operations.…”

“…In addition to engaging debates on international criminal justice, I make a conceptual contribution to IR scholarship on international norms. Specifically, I build on recent research emphasizing the interconnectedness of norms, including norm collisions (Buitelaar and Hirschmann, 2021; Gholiagha et al, 2020; Peltner, 2017; Saltnes, 2017), norm clusters and complexes (Lantis and Wunderlich, 2018; Orchard, 2020; Winston, 2018), complex and hybrid norms (Fehl, 2019; Lesch, 2021) and permissive effects between norms (Rosert, 2019).…”

“… 4. In addition to a broader ‘nonimpunity’ norm (Bower, 2019) or ‘legal accountability norm’ (Hirsch and Dixon, 2021), the ICC Statute also embodies the more specific notion that international courts should step in if impunity prevails at the national level (Buitelaar and Hirschmann, 2021). …”