It's funny. Before I went to Bradford I had one goal, one focus in mind for my studies - post-genocide justice for Rwanda. Having been part of a New Zealand delegation to Rwanda and the UNICTR in 2009, I had fire in my belly and a mission to justify the role of criminal prosecutions in post-conflict justice.
In some small way I managed to carry that passion throughout much of my course work. I wrote papers entrenching criminal justice as an integral part of reconciliation, I monitored Rwandan justice as it played out both inside Rwanda and outside, and I argued with anyone who dared suggest that the issue of criminal prosecutions was too hard and too irrelevant. Yet now I find myself sitting at a desk in Munich, trying to write the last chapter of my dissertation, and finding that the passion which I once had has dwindled somewhat. Why?
In part, I think my backing down began in Sri Lanka. Having spent two weeks meeting with NGOs, government officials and joe-public, I realised that while my western perspective of justice was all very well and good, the reality of bringing criminal prosecutions to post-conflict societies was far from easy. In fact, what I left Sri Lanka with was a sense that justice is not always possible, at least not the way I perceive it to be.
Then there was my time in Rwanda. An educational and enlightening experience yes, but a frustrating and disheartening one as well. I really felt as if I came crashing to the ground with a thump and was then hit in the head with my own naivity. What people in post-conflict society want, and how those of us who are engaged in international criminal justice think they should get it, seem to be mutually exclusive. Or at least that is my growing belief.
In short, you might say I am having a crisis of conscience and of opinion. I feel at the moment that the rug has been pulled out from under me a little. I am currently writing my MA dissertation on the role of the international community in post-genocide justice - specifically the role of domestic third-party states in prosecuting Rwandan genocidaires. My basic thesis is that the system at the moment is not working - the obligations states have under moral, cosmopolitan theory, and those under international criminal law, are inconsistent, incompatible and easily circumvented. In turn this has lead to a system of justice without cohesion and a willingness of states to pass-the-buck when faced with Rwandan genocidaires within their borders. Prosecutions are few and far between and where they occur, they are protracted and expensive. Add to this the fact that the burden for investigations into refugee claims and domestic prosecutions falls significantly upon the small justice budget of Rwanda - a country with little human resources or financial means to continue to assist states whilst mounting expensive and time-consuming extradition requests simultaneously. My argument is that we are failing as an international community to punish crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes in the Rwandan context and as a result, Rwanda has become disheartened, states look like they don't care, and genocidaires (such as the four accused in the Bajinya Case) go unpunished.
Based on this argument, I then go on to pose some solutions for the future. One of my conclusions relates to the establishment and strengthening of specialised units within third-party states, which to my fortune, is the subject of a paper released by REDRESS and FIDH earlier this year.
So why then am I so stuck? Why do I still feel that my arguments are futile and superficial, and what should have been a simple paper to write (although lengthy) has become like pulling teeth?
Please, if anyone reading this has some words of advice or criticisms, throw a sister a bone.
T
No comments:
Post a Comment