Universal jurisdiction is an interesting proposition for international justice. On the one hand, it provides an opportunity to bring accountability for crimes against humanity in a way that would not have been possible in the country where the crimes may be occurring. On the other hand, it feels hypocritical for Western imperial countries to make these judgments when they are sitting on crimes of aggression, as the podcast points out. Further, these judgments are made into the abyss with little meaningful consequences except for bridging to justice for low-ranking perpetrators within a huge system of unspeakable cruelty.
In a world where indifference is the political status quo, at least beyond the mark of a performative tweet or a virtue-signaling announcement, I am moved by the argument that legitimizing war crimes in a court has significant value in that it makes it harder for other countries to continue about business as usual. The court proceedings and their coverage keep public attention, otherwise short-lived, on the case. Sometimes, it seems among the daily, hourly, minute-by-minute atrocities that occur in war, we lose track of the magnitude of each hurt. To organize it all, spell it out, and prove it makes it real on the public record. How can a government, while maintaining its public image, continue to make trade deals when these truths are in the news?
Further, acknowledging these experiences by a legitimate judicial power means a lot to survivors. As the New Statesmen article captured, “This is not a Syrian issue, but a European issue.” If the thousands of Syrian refugees in Europe, most of whom fled Assad, begin to lose faith in accountability and start to believe that “justice is fake” and nobody cares about their suffering, then “they will easily turn to extremism.”
Further, it reminded me of a scene from the reading from weeks back, where a Yazidi survivor in Germany saw her captor in a Berlin market. If for no other reason, universal jurisdiction has immense value in protecting her, the refugee, from that fate in their new safe haven country.
As The Reveal News piece notes, though human rights statutes have been in place for decades, only one individual has actually been prosecuted under these stautues. However, that hasn’t stopped civilians from taking action. Reveal News’ discussion brought forward the example of civilians seeking accountability in the Sri Lankan civil war. A privately hired investigator in America found Rajapaksa. Victims utilize the Al Capone method and try war criminals for lesser crimes than genocide and tortue, with Sri Lankans filing cases in civil court due to a lack of action from the government on criminal prosecution. Linking this to my original discussion on the value of judicial validation of atrocity, I do think the Al Capone strategy keeps offenders in public attention and levies some some semblance of consequence, but does it minimize the actual crimes against humanity? They will still be left unacknowldeged under this model of justice, which causes me to pause when considering is this is a good alternative/method of resistance.
