Elena Baylis on Post-Conflict Justice
Professor Elena Baylis presented her article, “Tribunal-Hopping with the Post-Conflict Justice Junkies,” at a faculty colloquium at Loyola University Chicago Law School on March 19. The article was published in a symposium issue of the Oregon Review of International Law at 10 Oregon Rev. Int’l L. 361 (2008) and is available on SSRN at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1374922. The abstract:
The field of post-conflict justice is characterized in no small part by international interventions into post-conflict settings. International interveners invest substantial resources toward the goals of post-conflict justice, including creating legal accountability for atrocities and rebuilding local and national justice systems that respect human rights and rule of law. The aims of post-conflict justice and the mechanisms by which the international community can contribute to post-conflict legal institutions and processes have been and continue to be studied intensively. But while the institutions, processes, and goals of post-conflict justice have been carefully scrutinized, another aspect of international interventions into post-conflict justice has been evaluated less thoroughly: the people who carry out the interventions. Who are the international lawyers, human rights officers, and others who do this crucial work on behalf of interveners, and what is their role in shaping post-conflict accountability and legal reform? Looking behind processes and institutions to the people involved is particularly critical in the post-conflict justice context, because there exists a tight-knit network of repeat players (the "post-conflict justice junkies") who move quickly and repeatedly from one international criminal tribunal or other post-conflict justice institution to the next ("tribunal-hopping"). In this symposium article, I explore the implications of the existence of this network and its practice of tribunal-hopping for the effectiveness of international involvement in post-conflict justice. This article sets out my initial observations and analysis in preparation for an empirical study.
Professor Baylis also presented her research on the International Criminal Court’s practice of relying on NGO and UN investigations to develop evidence at a symposium at UCLA Law School on February 20. Information on the symposium, entitled “Trends and Tensions in International Criminal Procedure,” is at http://www.law.ucla.edu/jilfa/symposium.html. Professor Baylis also presented a work-in-progress, “Bellwether Courts: From Mass Torts to Mass Atrocities,” at Temple Law School’s International Law Colloquium on February 3. Information on the colloquium is at http://www.law.temple.edu/servlet/RetrievePage?site=TempleLaw&page=IILPP_Lecture_Series_Intl_Law_Colloquium_2009.