Are Justice And Peace Competing Or Complementary Goals?

The pursuit of justice and peace can be complementary to one another and mutually reinforcing, or they can compete at the expense of one another. Though accountability for those who have committed heinous crimes is strongly desired by the international community and particularly the people who have suffered under brutal reigns, it is not always the best way to achieve lasting peace. Lasting peace may have to be built on a foundation of compromise, rather than on the punishment of the aggressor's side. This essay briefly explores situations where engaging in justice initiatives have a positive outcome on peace processes. Following this, some instances where the pursuit of justice harm the successful outcomes of peace processed are identified.

Justice, in the sense of holding those who have committed egregious crimes accountable, is an indubitably positive moral position. The ethical righteousness of justice is so strongly ingrained in the collective conscience that even those who express displeasure at the international justice model carefully avoid criticizing it from a moral perspective. The major advocates of pursuing justice in the face of atrocities point to the role it plays as a deterrent for future atrocities. There are two interpretations of deterrence which is created in the wake of international justice. Firstly, general deterrence is engaged in over a long period of time. It is not bound by political or geographic barriers, but instead has effects that are felt further afield. As an example, the prosecution of a high profile leader that has committed war crimes in the International Criminal Court (ICC) may deter other leaders from breaking laws governing war crimes or the treatment of civilians because of the knowledge they could be held accountable. The Nuremberg Trials and Tokyo Trials that occurred in the aftermath of the Second World War sparked the precedent of holding leaders accountable for their actions. The notion of specific deterrence deals with the more immediate effects of prosecuting war crimes perpetrators. Theoretically, prosecuting major criminals while a conflict is still ongoing should decrease the continuation of war crimes in said conflict. Through prosecution, the public perception of a leader can change from that of a high ranking authority figure to a criminal. Prosecution can set off a chain of events, starting with the marginalization of the person being prosecuted. There is a subsequent loss of power as the public opinion of that person falls. This leads to delegitimization and disintegration of that person's power structure. Tribunals and International Criminal Court trials focus on individuals' roles within conflicts. As was seen in the Nuremberg Trials, where German officers were held accountable for heinous crimes, the defence that they were simply following the orders of higher commanders was no longer legitimate. It has been argued that the use of tribunals and the ICC with their focus on individual culpability, place the burden and ownership of guilt on specific people, and undermine the collective mentality that allows people to commit crimes without analyzing the broader meaning of their actions. This can broadly contribute to breaking out of patterns of cyclical violence where the individual ownership of actions is lacking.

It seems strange that two goals which are morally motivated and universally acknowledged as positive can work counter to one another. However, this situation can arise when justice is blindly pursued without attention being paid to the longer term consequences and its effects on other areas of development. Vinjamuri identifies major problems with international justice that must be addressed if peace and justice are to become mutually supportive. Establishing accountability of perpetrators should ideally occur within the space set out by nation states, and should avail of their own legal systems. However, this often does not reflect reality, as years of conflicts and low development has impeded or regressed the establishment of institutions. In such situations, the ICC may choose to intervene and provide accountability through their own court and with their own legal experts. This undermines state ownership of the judicial system. Another major stumbling point is claim that deterrence occurs as a result of international justice being administered. Deterrence is not an easy concept to measure in practical terms on the ground. There is yet to be an empirically supported conclusion that international justice does in fact lead to the ebbing of future war crimes. In some cases, the goal of the ICC has been undermined by its lack of support amongst certain countries. It has no jurisdiction among non-members unless their case is forwarded by an ICC signatory member. Amnesties are not subjected to these same problems. Though they contradict the ideals of holding war criminals accountable, they nevertheless play critical roles in diffusing conflict. Application of international justice at a local level in the absence of a strong judiciary can negative impact peace processes by revealing institutional weakness and the breakdown of bargaining between key actors.

At this point, it is inconclusive if the interactions between the pursuit of peace and of justice are mutually beneficial or undermining. International justice is too narrowly focused on its own moral appeal. It undermines itself by failing to back up claims with empirical evidence, instead shielding itself with its ethical motivations. If international justice is to become more compatible with peacebuilding, then greater in-depth analysis of the results of its actions is needed. Whether the pursuit of international justice is ultimately positive must consider both theory, empirical evaluations and real world events.