This essay critically displays on the chances and limitations of adjudicatory processes for delivering justice within the aftermath of genocide. Following Hermann (2017), I make use of a holistic definition of justice to incorporate each punishing the perpetrators (retributive components) and assembly the wants of the victims (restorative ingredient). I argue in favour of grassroots approaches to adjudication—as these create extra prospects for attaining each the restorative and retributive objectives—over top-down state-led adjudication mechanisms, that are restricted by the pursuits of the state and the worldwide group, and danger constituting merely performances of justice.

This essay proceeds as follows. After briefly introducing the case research informing this paper, I focus on the constraints of state-led and/or international-backed mechanisms for delivering justice, exhibiting that they are usually experience-distant and non-victim-centred. I then suggest the notion of a efficiency of justice to explain the spectacle-like adjudicatory processes which low cost victims’ wants and fail to ship justice. I argue that such performative facet is a limitation of top-down post-genocide adjudication processes, as it might serve to reputable state establishments and introduce political and/or financial ideologies, whereas concealing potential miscarriages of justice. Lastly, I examine grassroots adjudicatory mechanisms, exhibiting that, whereas not with out limitations, they create most prospects for supporting victims, bringing perpetrators to justice, and aiding intra-community reconciliation.

This essay in knowledgeable by the case research of Rwanda and Cambodia. The Cambodian genocide (1975-1979) included large-scale killing and persecution of minorities carried out primarily by the members of the Khmer Rouge regime and resulted within the deaths of roughly 1.6 million individuals (Meierhenrich 2014: 43-44). The Rwandan genocide (1994) occurred throughout the Rwandan Civil Warfare and noticed violence led by armed militias and focused primarily towards the minority Tutsi, resulting in roughly 800 thousand deaths (ibid.: 49-50, Guichaoua, 2020). Each international locations noticed international-backed makes an attempt at adjudication, which took the form of the Worldwide Legal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and the Extraordinary Chambers within the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC). Whereas the ICTR was composed absolutely of worldwide judges and sat in Tanzania, the ECCC, situated in Cambodia, was primarily based on a hybrid mannequin the place worldwide prosecutors and judges have been paired with Cambodian counterparts (Peck, 2018). Moreover, Rwanda employed the Gacaca court docket system, which comprised over 12,000 community-based courts (HRW, 2011). Collectively, these case research permit for investigating the alternatives and limitations of post-genocide adjudicatory processes, specializing in the variations between top-down and grassroots approaches, and the function of a number of stakeholders—together with worldwide, state, and native actors—in such processes.

Justice as an illusory aim: The structural limitations of post-genocide adjudication

Each Rwanda’s ICTR and Cambodia’s ECCC expose the constraints of top-down and international-backed efforts at delivering justice in post-genocide settings. Whereas political and administrative obstacles prevented these tribunals from punishing the perpetrators of atrocities, their experience-distant and non-victim-centred approaches restricted their skills to fulfill the wants of the genocides’ victims. Earlier than addressing these limitations, nevertheless, it’s value noting the potential benefits of such adjudicatory efforts. Most notably, nationwide and worldwide tribunals have the ample abilities in addition to the monetary and technical sources to deliver probably the most high-profile perpetrators to justice. They may also help (re-)inform the tales and experiences of genocide’s victims, whereas offering them with ample safety and psychological assist. By allocating monetary compensation, they’ll additionally assist meet the socio-economic wants of the victims, whose livelihoods are sometimes destroyed throughout the genocide.

But, the ECCC and ICTR failed to realize these objectives. First, the tribunals delivered a comparatively low variety of convictions—simply 3 within the case of the ECCC and 61 within the case of the ICTR (Peck, 2018; Cascais and Ehl, 2019; UN Information, 2015). As a result of affect of the current regimes in Cambodia and Rwanda on the courts’ buildings and proceedings, neither tried suspects linked to the present governments (HRW, 2015; Cascais and Ehl, 2019; Un, 2013). Within the case of ECCC, the court docket’s refusal to place extra suspects on trial—on account of an administratively-determined definition of “high-ranking officers” in addition to the court docket’s self-perception as a high-profile establishment—drew condemnation (AFP, 2017). The ECCC additionally suffered from allegations of corruption and politicisation, which additional lowered its legitimacy (Campbell, 2014).

On the identical time, each courts largely failed to deal with the wants of the victims or adequately interact them within the proceedings. Regardless of victims’ typically dire monetary state of affairs, the courts’ mandates didn’t allow them to allocate reparations or ample socio-economic assist (HRW 2015, Open Society, 2013; Zegveld, 2019). Furthermore, though most Cambodians and Rwandans have been affected by the genocides, the international locations’ populations remained little conscious of the continuing trials on the ECCC and ICTR, to not point out understanding the specifics of their “work, proceedings, or outcomes” (Pham et al., 2009: 3; Abe, 2013: 9; Uvin and Mironko, 2003: 221). The ICTR, particularly, was criticised for inadequate engagement with the victims and their “instrumentalisation” (Baumgartner, 2008: 433; Majola, 2014: 9). Certainly, victims’ rights organisations have raised a number of considerations with the ICTR remedy of the victims, and a few selected to chop cooperation with the court docket (Trumbull, 2008: 787; IFHR, 2002).

The structural constraints of such top-down adjudicatory processes clarify these weaknesses of the ECCC and ICTR. The legalism and strict buildings of such our bodies imply that they permit for little engagement of the victims—past giving testimony or taking part in consultations, ought to these happen— to not point out influencing the form of the authorized course of. In line with Robins (2017: 58), such “structural limitations of the dominant mechanisms of trials and fact commissions accommodate victims solely as nominal or instrumental actors.” As he additional notes, whereas “such establishments require victims, … the advantages to victims of their function seem restricted” (ibid.). Unable to account for the views of victims and/or home populations, such establishments stay experience-distant and indifferent from native communities. Their buildings and adherence to stringent worldwide authorized requirements additionally make them ill-equipped to contemplate native values and conceptions of justice (Wielenga, 2018). Given these limitations to reaching restorative and retributive justice, the emphasis on attaining justice and reconciliation by means of such high-level tribunals is commonly misguided, because it each directs consideration away from victims’ typically most imminent wants—be these psychological or socio-economic ones—and creates excessive expectations which, when unmet, could also be a supply of additional misery for the victims.

Put up-genocide adjudication as a efficiency of justice

The constraints and slim outcomes of the adjudication mechanisms mentioned above stand in stark distinction with the excessive aspirations of such our bodies in addition to the eye and sources they have an inclination to draw. Conceptualising these adjudicatory processes as performances of justice permits for explaining this stress and understanding its implications for delivering justice. Such a lens was initially instructed by Hannah Arendt (1951), who noticed the theatrical options of the Eichmann trial, drawing consideration to its extremely public nature and structural traits, e.g., the presence of an viewers, theatre-like courtroom structure. In highlighting these components, Arendt centered totally on the performative components of court docket proceedings inside to the courtroom (Bilsky, 1996).

I suggest, nevertheless, that it’s potential to refer the broader means of adjudication—from the graduation of related tribunals to the supply of their verdicts—as a efficiency of justice, to explain the spectacle-like adjudicatory course of, which largely fails to ship justice and reductions the wants of the victims. This interpretation is knowledgeable by a number of key options of the ICTR and ECCC proceedings. First, the truth that their deliberations have been costly (with estimated prices at, respectively, $300 million and $2 billion), prolonged (lasted over a decade every), and (self-)described as high-profile created a surrounding ambiance of grandiosity, significance, and inaccessibility (Mydans, 2017; Leithead, 2015; Beech, 2018; AFP, 2017; Schense at al., 2017: 114, 439; OHCHR 2015). Such sense of exclusivity was additional exacerbated by the courts’ detachment from extraordinary Cambodians and Rwandans, matched by their shut relationships with high-ranking officers, together with the UN Secretary Normal and heads of state. Second, given the worldwide consideration and acclaim obtained by each courts, it’s potential to see the worldwide group, relatively than home populations, as the first viewers of the efficiency. Certainly, UN sources reward ICTR’s “substantial contribution[s]” and its “main function in combat towards impunity” and recount ECCC’s “successes” and “distinctive achievements” which—we be taught from Ban Ki-Moon’s speech—have been “very important on the earth’s combat towards impunity” (UN Information, 2015; Ki-Moon, 2010; UNAKRT, 2014). Lastly, as famous above, neither the courts’ excessive aspirations not the sources and a spotlight they consumed have been matched by the outcomes of their deliberations. These adjudication mechanisms due to this fact constituted little greater than performances.

Such performative nature acts a serious limitation for delivering justice. It conceals the non-results of the trials as such grand spectacles can create an impression that the “genocide chapter” of nation’s historical past is “closed”, whereas in reality the wants of the victims stay unmet and justice undelivered. It additionally masks the underlying energy buildings and processes at play, which could have long-term implications for the home populations of the international locations affected by genocides, together with their victims.

It’s value additional investigating this latter limitation. Figuring out that post-genocide adjudicatory processes typically fail to ship justice, we needs to be asking what’s occurring—to make use of Hinton’s (2018) time period—behind such “justice façades.” Analysing the function and pursuits of the actors—each nationwide and worldwide—concerned within the challenge of post-genocide adjudication helps reply this query. On the nationwide degree, a efficiency of justice can serve a number of functions. Given the harmful impacts of genocide on states’ buildings and legitimacy, it legitimises the state and aids the state-building course of (Robins, 2017: 43). It additionally provides legitimacy to the brand new authorities and protects its popularity, by sheltering authorities officers from justice. Certainly, neither the ECCC not the ICTR placed on trial any of the officers linked to the current ruling regimes regardless of proof of their involvement in genocidal violence. Lastly, the method of defining the classes of victims and perpetrators has profound political implications. In line with Bowsher, “the antagonistic striations of race and sophistication … are smoothed over and effaced by narratives organised round victims and perpetrators of bodily violence” (Bowsher, 2018A: 97; 2018B). These classes are additionally deeply depoliticising and make the victims extra simply “governable” (ibid.). On the identical time, on the world degree, international-backed adjudicatory processes could permit the most important actors and ideologies to permeate and/or dominate native settings (see Bowsher, 2018A; Robins, 2017; Hinton, 2018). Partaking establishments such because the United Nations in post-genocide adjudication efforts provides them appreciable leverage and permits them to form international locations’ post-conflict future, which dangers additional undermining the company of the native actors. Furthermore, whereas such establishments would possibly assist the objectives of justice and reconciliation, they outline these objectives in relation to the political and financial concepts—equivalent to assist for liberal democracy or neoliberal globalisation—embedded to their buildings and operations (Bowsher, 2018A; Hinton, 2018). That is exemplified by a 1992 UN report, “An Agenda for Peace,” which makes a connection between transitional justice and hopes for reaching “extra open types of financial coverage” (Bouros-Ghali, 1992: 5 in Hinton, 2018). Put up-genocide adjudicatory processes would possibly due to this fact act as entry factors for political and financial actors and concepts, whereas concurrently disguising them behind the performances of justice.

Potentialities for delivering justice: Classes from Rwanda’s Gacaca

Grassroots justice schemes—by means of permitting for native and victim-driven approaches to justice—supply prospects for overcoming most of the obstacles of top-down adjudicatory processes mentioned above. The teachings from Rwanda’s Gacaca, a community-based court docket system, may also help inform such approaches. First, Gacaca’s construction and method have been largely victim-centred. Gacaca allowed for top ranges of victims’ engagement at completely different phases of the processes, from electing Gacaca judges to taking part within the locally-held trials (Brouwer and Ruvebana, 2013: 940-941). Victims and group members have been capable of share their experiences (ought to they want to take action) and contribute to the understanding of the genocide and shaping the narratives round it. Furthermore, encouragement of perpetrators’ confessions allowed the survivors to be taught of what occurred to their family members and of their burial locations—which some victims described as “‘drugs’ which aided their therapeutic” (Thibodeau, 2020: 23)—and created room for “extraordinary killers to regain their humanness” (Reuchamps, 2008: 11). Certainly, each victims and perpetrators reported truth-telling to be amongst the biggest advantages of Gacaca (Thibodeau, 2020: 23). By 469 interviews with Gacaca individuals, Clark (2010: 3) exhibits that the method contributed to “reconciliation and social reconstruction.” Furthermore, the native nature of Gacaca ensured that it accounted for native values and understandings of justice. Gacaca additionally allotted compensation within the form of group service and/or monetary assist which, though typically described as inadequate, went past the “ethical reparations” or ECCC and ICTR (Reuchamps, 2008: 11; HRW, 2011, Open Society, 2013). Lastly, the dimensions of Gacaca—over 12,000 courts tried over 1,200,000 circumstances—allowed for bringing justice, albeit imperfect, to giant numbers of victims in a comparatively quick time frame (UN, 2012).

It’s key to notice that such grassroots methods usually are not with out limitations. Within the case of Gacaca, Human Rights Watch (2011) has documented situations of corruption, procedural irregularities, violations of defendants’ rights and inadequate safety of victims. Extra broadly, grassroots justice methods have been dismissed as gender-biased, patriarchal, not “actually” participatory and serving to exacerbate current cleavages and inequalities (see Allen and Macdonald, 2013; Haider, 2016; Waldorf, 2006: 77; Huyse and Salter, 2008).

This essay does not suggest Gacaca, in its unique form, as a template for post-genocide adjudicatory processes. Fairly, on condition that it overcomes a number of structural obstacles of top-down methods, it ought to function an inspiration for constructing actually grassroots, actor-oriented, and victim-driven post-genocide justice schemes. Notably, there’s vital room to mitigate a few of Gacaca’s weaknesses. For example, HRW’s 2011 extremely vital report tied most of its weaknesses to the dearth of renumeration and inadequate coaching of judges, a limitation that might (comparatively) simply be overcome. Equally, whereas Gacaca is alleged to have been used to “assert the facility of the federal government” (Longdman, 2009: 304, 2010), widespread participation in such processes can create room for checking energy and disrupting governments’ hidden agendas. Thus, whereas Gacaca was a largely victim-driven and bottom-up course of—which facilitated the supply of justice—the chances of grassroots justice methods prolong past the advantages provided by Gacaca.


Concluding, grassroots justice schemes are higher outfitted to ship justice within the aftermath of genocide than top-down state-led adjudication mechanisms. The latter are severely constrained by the pursuits of the state and worldwide actors and their legalistic and non-victim-centred method. These limitations imply that, in apply, (inter)national-backed courts typically represent little greater than performances of justice. Grassroots methods, then again, whereas not with out limitations, permit for overcoming the structural weaknesses of top-down mechanisms. By their bottom-up, actor-oriented, victim-driven method, they create prospects for each punishing the perpetrators and assembly the wants of the victims—thereby supporting each the retributive and restorative justice objectives—whereas awarding company to the victims and native communities, inviting various stakeholders to form the narratives of genocide, and paving the best way for intra-community reconciliation.


Abe, Toshihiro. “Perceptions of the Khmer Rouge Tribunal amongst Cambodians: Implications of the Proceedings of Public Boards Held by a Native NGO.” Southeast Asia Analysis 21, no. 1 (2013): 5–26.

AFP Information. “Prime Khmer Rouge Chief Denies Genocide at Shut of UN-Backed Trial.” JusticeInfo.Internet (weblog), 2017. https://www.justiceinfo.web/en/33669-top-khmer-rouge-leader-denies-genocide-at-close-of-un-backed-trial-2.html.

Allen, Tim, and Anna Macdonald. “Put up-Battle Conventional Justice: A Crucial Overview,” 2013.

Arendt, Hannah. The Origins of Totalitarianism. New ed. A Harvest Ebook HB244. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1951 [1973].

Baumgartner, Elisabeth. “Features of Sufferer Participation within the Proceedings of the Worldwide Legal Courtroom.” Worldwide Evaluation of the Pink Cross 90, no. 870 (2008): 409–40.

Beech, Hannah. “Khmer Rouge’s Slaughter in Cambodia Is Dominated a Genocide.” The New York Instances, 2018, sec. World.

Bilsky, Leora Y. “When Actor and Spectator Meet within the Courtroom: Reflections on Hannah Arendt’s Idea of Judgment.” Historical past and Reminiscence 8, no. 2 (1996): 137–73.

Bowsher, Josh. “Regulation & Critique: Transitional Justice as ‘Omnus et Singulatim.’” Crucial Authorized Considering (weblog), 2018.

Bowsher, Josh. “‘Omnus et Singulatim’: Establishing the Relationship Between Transitional Justice and Neoliberalism.” Regulation and Critique 29, no. 1 (2018): 83–106.

Brouwer, Anne-Marie, and Etienne Ruvebana. “The Legacy of the Gacaca Courts in Rwanda: Survivors’ Views.” Worldwide Legal Regulation Evaluation 13, no. 5 (2013): 937–76.

Cascais, Antonio, and David Ehl. “ICTR: A Tribunal That Failed Rwandan Genocide Victims and Survivors | DW | 08.11.2019.”, 2019.

Clark, Philip. The Gacaca Courts, Put up-Genocide Justice and Reconciliation in Rwanda: Justice with out Attorneys. Cambridge Research in Regulation and Society. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge College Press, 2010.

Guichaoua, André. “Counting the Rwandan Victims of Warfare and Genocide: Concluding Reflections.” Journal of Genocide Analysis 2020, no. 1 (2020): 125–41.

Haider, Huma. Transitional Justice: Subject Information. GSDRC, 2016.

Hermann, Donald. “Restorative Justice and Retributive Justice: An Alternative for Cooperation or an Event for Battle within the Seek for Justice.” Seattle Journal for Social Justice 16, no. 1 (December 19, 2017).

Hinton, Alexander. “Introduction: The Transitional Justice Imaginary.” In The Justice Facade: Trials of Transition in Cambodia, 2018.

Human Rights Watch (HRW). “Justice Compromised: The Legacy of Rwanda’s Group-Primarily based Gacaca Courts.” Human Rights Watch, 2011.

Human Rights Watch (HRW). “Rwanda: Worldwide Tribunal Closing Its Doorways.” Human Rights Watch, 2015.

Huyse, Lucien, and Mark Salter, eds. Conventional Justice and Reconciliation after Violent Battle: Studying from African Experiences. Stockholm: Worldwide Thought, 2008.

Worldwide Federation for Human Rights (IFHR). “Victims within the Stability: Challenges Forward for the ICTR,” 2002.

Ki-Moon, Ban. “Secretary-Normal’s Remarks at Extraordinary Chambers within the Courts of Cambodia.” United Nations Secretary-Normal, 2010. material/sg/assertion/2010-10-27/secretary-generals-remarks-extraordinary-chambers-courts-cambodia.

Leithead, Alastair. “Rwanda Genocide: Worldwide Legal Tribunal Closes.” BBC Information, 2015, sec. Africa.

Longman, Timothy. “An Evaluation of Rwanda’s Gacaca Courts.” Peace Evaluation 21, no. 3 (2009): 304–12.

Longman, Timothy. “Making an attempt Instances for Rwanda: Re-evaluating Gacaca Courts in Put up-Genocide Reconciliation.” Harvard Worldwide Regulation Evaluation 32, no. 2 (2010): 48–52.

Majola, Bongani. “Speech of The ICTR Registrar, Mr. Bongani Majola on the Event of The Commemoration of the Twentieth Anniversary of The Institution of the ICTR.” 2014.

Meierhenrich, Jens, ed. Genocide: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford College Press, 2014.

Mydans, Seth. “11 Years, $300 Million and three Convictions. Was the Khmer Rouge Tribunal Price It?” The New York Instances, 2017, sec. World.

Open Society. “The Funding Problem for Reparations in Cambodia.” Open Society Justice Initiative, 2013.

Peck, Grant. “Consultants on Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge Tribunal: ‘A Full Failure.’” CTVNews, 2018.

Pham, Phuong N., Patrick Vinck, Sokhom Hean, and Eric Stover. “So We Will By no means Overlook: A Inhabitants-Primarily based Survey On Attitudes About Social Reconstruction and the Extraordinary Chambers within the Courts of Cambodia,” 2009.

Reuchamps, Min. “What Justice for Rwanda? Gacaca versus Fact Fee?” Working Papers in African Research Collection 256 (2008). with/2268/418.

Robins, Simon. “Failing Victims? The Limits of Transitional Justice in Addressing the Wants of Victims of Violations.” Human Rights and Worldwide Authorized Discourse, 2017, 41–58.

Schense, Jennifer, Linda E. Carter, and Worldwide Nuremberg Rules Academy, eds. Two Steps Ahead, One Step Again: The Deterrent Impact of Worldwide Legal Tribunals. Nuremberg Academy Collection, no. 1 (2017). Brussels [Belgium]: Torkel Opsahl Educational EPublisher, 2017.

Thibodeau, Mary. “Analyzing the Social Affect of Gacaca Courts within the Reconciliation Course of in Rwanda.” Unbiased Research Venture (ISP) Assortment, 2020.

Trumbull, Charles. “The Victims of Sufferer Participation in Worldwide Legal Proceedings.” Michigan Journal of Worldwide Regulation 29, no. 4 (2008): 777–826.

Un, Kheang. “The Khmer Rouge Tribunal: A Politically Compromised Seek for Justice.” The Journal of Asian Research 72, no. 4 (2013): 783–92.

UN Human Rights Workplace of the Excessive Commissioner (OHCHR). “Promotion of ECCC Legacy | OHCHR,” 2015.

UN Information. “UN Tribunal on Rwandan Genocide Formally Closes – Main Function in Battle towards Impunity.” UN Information, 2015.

United Nations (UN). “The Justice and Reconciliation Course of in Rwanda.” Outreach Programme on The Rwanda Genocide, 2012.

United Nations Help to the Khmer Rouge Trials (UNAKRT). “UN Employees Help Khmer Rouge Tribunal Attain Historic Verdict.” Everlasting Missions, 2014.

Uvin, Peter, and Charles Mironko. “Western and Native Approaches to Justice in Rwanda.” International Governance 9, no. 2 (2003): 219–31.

Waldorf, Lars. “Mass Justice for Mass Atrocity: Rethinking Native Justice as Transitional Justice.” Temple Regulation Evaluation 79, no. 1 (2006).

Wielenga, Cori. “What Is ‘the Native’? Exploring Grassroots Justice Programs as a Technique of Understanding the Native.” Kujenga Amani (weblog), 2018. Zegveld, Liesbeth. “Victims as a Third Celebration: Empowerment of Victims?” Worldwide Legal Regulation Evaluation 19, no. 2 (2019): 321–45.

Additional Studying on E-Worldwide Relations