David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Ethics and International Affairs 24 (2):191-211 (2010)
In recent years the efforts to hold the perpetrators of mass atrocities accountable have become increasingly normalized, and building capacity in this area has become central to the strategies of numerous advocacy groups, international organizations, and governments engaged in rebuilding and reconstructing states. The indictment of sitting heads of state and rebel leaders engaged in ongoing conflicts, however, has been more exceptional than normal, but is nonetheless radically altering how we think about, debate, and practice justice. While a principled commitment continues to underpin advocacy for justice, several court documents and high-profile reports by leading advocacy organizations stress the capacity of international justice to deliver peace, the rule of law, and stability to transitional states. Such an approach presents a stark contrast to rationales for prosecution that claim that there is a moral obligation or a legal duty to prosecute the perpetrators of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Instead, recent arguments have emphasized the instrumental purposes of justice, essentially recasting justice as a tool of peacebuilding and encouraging proponents and critics alike to evaluate justice on the basis of its effects. Rationales that stress the results that international justice can help deliver have raised the expectations of proponents and skeptics alike and also encouraged further empirical study of the effects of justice. While these studies may not produce a consensus, they offer the prospect that justice strategies can be adapted based on careful research to be more effective. A focus on pragmatism does not mean abandoning the principled commitment to international justice, but it may mean deferring justice until conflict is resolved.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Kirsten Ainley (2011). Excesses of Responsibility: The Limits of Law and the Possibilities of Politics. Ethics and International Affairs 25 (4):407-431.
Similar books and articles
Allen E. Buchanan (2004). Justice, Legitimacy, and Self-Determination: Moral Foundations for International Law. Oxford University Press.
Samuel Richard Freeman (2006). Justice and the Social Contract: Essays on Rawlsian Political Philosophy. Oxford University Press.
Marcus Arvan (2012). Reconceptualizing Human Rights. Journal of Global Ethics 8 (1):91-105.
Lars O. Ericsson (1980). Two Principles of International Justice. In Lars O. Ericsson, Harald Ofstad & Giuliano Pontara (eds.), Justice, Social, and Global: Papers Presented at the Stockholm International Symposium on Justice, Held in September 1978. Akademilitteratur
Telford Taylor (1975). Perspectives on Justice. Northwestern University Press.
Rosemary Foot, John Lewis Gaddis & Andrew Hurrell (eds.) (2003). Order and Justice in International Relations. Oxford University Press.
Wojciech Sadurski (1984). Social Justice and Legal Justice. Law and Philosophy 3 (3):329 - 354.
Keith M. Dowding, Robert E. Goodin, Carole Pateman & Brian Barry (eds.) (2004). Justice and Democracy: Essays for Brian Barry. Cambridge University Press.
Chelsea Luthringer (2000). So What is Justice Anyway? Rosen Pub. Group.
Added to index2010-07-02
Total downloads11 ( #323,088 of 1,911,758 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #458,986 of 1,911,758 )
How can I increase my downloads?