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) • Feature
Cosmopolitan Democracy: Paths and Agents
This article shows that there are a variety of paths that could lead to more democratic global governance, and that there are a diversity of ...
Winter 2011 (25.4) • Review
Briefly Noted
This section contains a round-up of recent notable books in the field of international affairs.
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 ...