Monopolizing Global Justice: International Criminal Law as Challenge to Human Diversity

Abstract

Over the past two decades, international criminal law has been increasingly institutionalized and has become one of the dominant frames for defining issues of justice and conflict resolution. Indeed, international criminal law is often presented as the road towards global justice. But the rise of international criminal law and its equation with global justice come with a profound risk: alternative conceptions of justice can be marginalized. Based on field work in Uganda and Sudan, we present five examples of alternative conceptions of justice that in fact have been side-lined: the restoration of relationships, putting an end to ongoing violence, redistribution, non-criminal law forms of punishment and equality. However, international criminal law's monopolization of discourses of justice threatens not only alternative conceptions of justice, but also international criminal law itself. It frustrates one of its main aims: the protection of diversity.

Justice Sites and the Fight against Atrocity Crimes

“…The practices and ideals of distinct practices can pull sites in different directions, something that is often evident in former conflict zones where international criminal justice and other peace and reconciliation efforts coexist. The contest between different ideals and practices can have substantial consequences, and scholarship has pointed to tension between international criminal law interventions as they potentially undermine human rights, monopolizing justice efforts and pushing out other rights and justice claims (Branch 2011;Nouwen and Werner 2014;Engle, Miller, and Davis 2016).…”

NGO influence in global governance: achieving transitional justice in Uganda and beyond

“…37 International law scholars raise concerns about the growing use of international criminal law as a path for global justice, in what they refer to as the 'monopolization of justice'. 38 Their argument is that tribunals created to serve such justice do not necessarily further the aims of international criminal law, 39 thus the need for more nuanced and contextual approaches. In addition, there are different conceptions of justice at both regional and international levels.…”

Krisetilstanden i det internasjonale strafferettsprosjektet – en rettssosiologisk analyse

“…Dette gjelder de frikjente, som ofte har blitt rammet av visum-og sikkerhetsproblemer som forhindrer deres retur til samfunnet de er en del av, så vel som de dømte, hvor det internasjonale strafferettsystemet har viet saerdeles lite oppmerksomhet til straffens innhold: rehabiliteringsprogrammer finnes ikke, de blir som regel satt fri etter 2/3 soning, og soner i det hele tatt i fengsler som ofte refereres til som «fem stjerners hotell» i forhold til de samfunnsforholdene forbrytelsene ble begått under. 61 Det gjelder også systemet som sådan, da det mangler systemisk sammenheng mellom de ulike domstolene samt straffenivå mellom internasjonal og nasjonal straffeforfølgning for tilsvarende forbrytelser. 62 I stedet for, gjelder det å få noen til rettenstille noen til ansvar.…”