The Arab Uprising and the rise and fall of international human rights

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

“…First, the high salience of positive linkage indicates that de-linking both norms is practically impossible, as Arbour (2014) concedes. Even actors who warn against factoring prospects for peace into decisions about prosecutions – like former ICC Prosecutor Bensouda (2012: 439) – also portray the ICC as ‘a form of protection’ and a framework ‘to manage conflicts’.…”

“…The better alternative is to openly acknowledge and discuss both positive and negative interactions between justice and protection while managing expectations about what justice can and cannot achieve. Addressing tensions may result in ‘yielding more to the political imperatives of peace’ (Arbour, 2014), but above all would require actors to spell out what potential risks to peace and protection are (not) worth taking to fulfil the principled goals associated with international criminal justice. Academics who have devoted much energy to exploring the nuances of the relationship between justice and protection can contribute to ensuring that political discussions about criminal justice are more reflective of those nuances and less of a caricature of scholarly debates.…”

“…In contrast, my study casts doubt on the notion that international justice is used as a ‘fig leaf’ to avoid more costly protective interventions. In light of these findings, I revisit the argument that justice and protection should be more ‘segregated’ (Arbour, 2014). I conclude that while a general de-linking of both norms is neither feasible nor desirable, political actors can and should avoid using linkage to legitimize sanctions and military interventions.…”

“…First, some observers note critically that justice advocates tend to ‘sell’ international tribunals (Vinjamuri, 2010: 199) by emphasizing their ability to contain violence against civilians – a rhetorical move that encourages the ICC’s use as a crisis-response tool. According to the critics, this framing is problematic because it not only papers over tensions between justice and protection, but also raises unrealistic expectations that could ultimately undermine support for justice (Arbour, 2014; Bosco, 2012; Vinjamuri, 2010: 205).…”