Exploring Post-Resistance to State Criminality: Realpolitik Versus Ideology

Shall the empty words of diplomatic abstractions always drown out the cries of human suffering? How long must sovereignty triumph while men are murdered and women and children are driven bleeding, raped, and starved from their homes? (1) THE TERM POST-RESISTANCE DIFFERS CONCEPTUALLY FROM WHAT SCHOLARS HAVE traditionally considered state crime controls since it encompasses more than the punitive nature of individual punishment per se (Ross, 1995/2000, 2000; Rothe and Mullins, 2006). It reflects the ideology that undergirds the push to end impunity for heads of state and high-ranking officials as a preventative mechanism and first step in the creation of broader ideological change in the international ethos. This includes generating or strengthening universal moral and ethical obligatory standards: international moral solidarity against massive human rights violations, genocide, crimes against humanity, crimes of aggression, and war crimes. This effort, however, is embedded in a broader contradiction--the ideology behind post-resistance and subsequent developments within international criminal justice systems and the historical and current realities of the practices of states. Ending Impunity The past two decades have witnessed increasing interest in, and a commitment to, post-conflict justice as a crucial means of sustaining peace and enhancing accountability. Since the mid-1980s, countries have initiated a diverse range of postconflict modalities of justice, including disarmament, demobilization, reintegration programs, truth and reconciliation commissions, reparation policies, traditional and ritual community practices, memorialization, lustration, administrative changes, and prosecutions. Yet, only since the early 1990s has there been a more centralized and semi-consistent international effort to end impunity. Indeed, as Kritz (2002: 55) observed: Recent years have seen major advances in the global push for post-conflict justice where new institutions, methodologies, and existing political bodies have adapted to reflect the growing concern over issues of justice and accountability and we have witnessed potent evidence of this emerging goal of global justice, ending impunity, and addressing victims' need for accountability. Legalistic mechanisms aimed at ending impunity "have gained substantial momentum," as evidenced in the United Nations Security Council's establishment of the Commission to Investigate War Crimes in the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the creation of the International Criminal Court, and the creation of mixed national/international tribunals in Sierra Leone, Kosovo, East Timor, and Cambodia (Bassiouni and Rothberg, 2007: 10). This growing interest in ending impunity was a central focus of the 2008-2009 U.N. High Commission for Human Rights. As the U.N. Strategic Management Plan states, "in 2008 and 2009, emphasis will be placed by the Office on ... the establishment of transitional justice mechanisms as an essential component in the fight against impunity." The broader goal of ending impunity, however, is grounded in a moral and ethical goal. Current prosecutions seek to create a future in which heads of states no longer commit crimes of aggression, genocide, crimes against humanity, or massive human rights abuses. In rare cases, the international political community has an obligation to stop these acts and refuse to allow impunity for any head of state or high-ranking official. The International Criminal Court (ICC) (2010: 1) seeks to "deter future war criminals, and bring nearer the day when no ruler, no State, no junta and no army anywhere will be able to abuse human rights." Undoubtedly, the goal of ending impunity for heads of state, commanders, and other high-ranking officials has gained momentum in the past decade. …