Since 1945 responsibility for atrocity has been individualized, and international tribunals and courts have been given effective jurisdiction over it. This article argues that the move to individual responsibility leaves significant "excesses" of responsibility for war crimes unaccounted for. When courts do attempt to recognize the collective nature of war crime perpetration, through the doctrines of "command responsibility," "joint criminal enterprise" and "state responsibility," the application of these doctrines has, it is argued, limited or perverse effects. The article suggests that instead of expecting courts to allocate excesses of responsibility, other accountability mechanisms should be used alongside trials to allocate political (rather than legal) responsibility for atrocity. The mechanisms favored here are "Responsibility and Truth Commissions," i.e., well-resourced non-judicial commissions which are mandated to hold to account individual and collective actors rather than simply to provide an account of past violence.
To read or purchase the full text of this article, click here.
More in this issue

Winter 2011 (25.4) • Review
Global Governance and the UN: An Unfinished Journey by Thomas G. Weiss and Ramesh Thakur
This book identifies "gaps" in world order and the ways that the UN has evolved to manage those gaps, albeit in a somewhat ad hoc ...

Winter 2011 (25.4) • Review
The Practice of Global Citizenship by Luis Cabrera
In this book, Luis Cabrera examines the actions that ordinary citizens might take as a way of promoting and protecting human rights. Cabrera ties together ...

Winter 2011 (25.4) • Review
Global Justice and Due Process by Larry May
In his latest book, Larry May argues that two rights--the right to habeas corpus and to non-refoulement--should be incorporated as norms of international law that ...