Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-21T12:33:57.034Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The concept of resilience and the evaluation of hybrid courts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 August 2020

Eric Wiebelhaus-Brahm Open the ORCID record for Eric Wiebelhaus-Brahm [Opens in a new window]
Eric Wiebelhaus-Brahm*
Affiliation:
University of Arkansas at Little Rock, 2801 S University Ave, Little RockAR72204, USA Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, I explore the concept of resilience and its relevance for evaluating hybrid court design and the impact of hybrid courts in societies that have experienced periods of mass violence or repression. I begin by tracing the evolution of the concept of resilience from the fields of materials science and ecology to human responses to natural and human-made disasters. Then, I examine the implications of how one defines the concept for the policy recommendations that should be provided to the architects and staff of hybrid courts. From there, I assess how the way one conceives of resilience shapes the assessment of the circumstances under which hybrid courts are more likely to be beneficial for violence-affected societies. I conclude by reflecting upon the utility of adopting resilience language in the study of hybrid courts. Resilience may be seductive conceptually because it provides a vision of empowerment and autonomy for victims and affected communities. However, resilience thinking is also consistent with neoliberal prescriptions that are contrary to the realization of the type of emancipatory justice that many hybrid court advocates seek.

Keywords

emancipatory justiceevaluationhybrid courtsresiliencetransitional justice
Type
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 33 , Issue 4 , December 2020 , pp. 1015 - 1028
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Ph.D.; Associate Professor in the School of Public Affairs and Coordinator of the Middle Eastern Studies Program at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock.

References

1 For a discussion of defining hybrid courts see S. Williams, Hybrid and Internationalised Criminal Tribunals: Selected Jurisdictional Issues (2012), 249–50; E. Cimiotta, ‘The Specialist Chambers and the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office in Kosovo’, (2016) 14 Journal of International Criminal Justice 53, at 60–2.

2 C. C. Jalloh, ‘Introduction: Assessing the Legacy of the Special Court for Sierra Leone’, in C. C. Jalloh (ed.), The Sierra Leone Special Court and its Legacy: The Impact for Africa and International Criminal Law (2015), 1.

3 B. J. Hollis, ‘Evaluating the Legacy of the Special Court for Sierra Leone’, in K. Ainley et al. (eds.), Evaluating Transitional Justice: Accountability and Peacebuilding in Post-Conflict Sierra Leone (2015).

4 C. Sriram, ‘Wrong-Sizing International Justice? The Hybrid Tribunal in Sierra Leone’, (2006) 29 Fordham International Law Journal 472; P. K. Mendez, ‘The New Wave of Hybrid Tribunals: A Sophisticated Approach to Enforcing International Humanitarian Law or an Idealistic Solution with Empty Promises?’, (2009) 20 Criminal Law Forum 53; Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Rule-of-Law Tools for Post-Conflict States: Maximizing the Legacy of Hybrid Courts, UN Doc. HR/PUB/08/2 (2008); V. E. Dittrich, ‘Legacies in the Making: Assessing the Institutionalized Legacy Endeavor of the Special Court for Sierra Leone’, in Jalloh, supra note 2, at 663–91.

5 OHCHR, supra note 4; E. Naughton, ‘Committing to Justice for Serious Human Rights Violations: Lessons from Hybrid Tribunals’, ICTJ, 12 May 2018, available at www.ictj.org/publication/committing-justice-serious-human-rights-violations-lessons-hybrid-tribunals.

6 United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Human Development Report 2014, Sustaining Human Progress: Reducing Vulnerabilities and Building Resilience (2014); The World Bank, World Development Report 2014, Risk and Opportunity: Managing Risk for Development (2013).

7 K. Menkhaus, ‘Making Sense of Resilience in Peacebuilding Contexts: Approaches, Applications, Implications’, Geneva Peacebuilding Platform, 2012, available at www.gpplatform.ch/sites/default/files/PP%2006%20-%20Resilience%20to%20Transformation%20-%20Jan.%202013_3.pdf.

8 A. Shaikh and C. Kauppi, ‘Deconstructing Resilience: Myriad Conceptualizations and Interpretations’, (2010) 3 International Journal of Arts and Sciences 155.

9 D. Fletcher and M. Sarkar, ‘Psychological Resilience: A Review and Critique of Definitions, Concepts, and Theory’, (2013) 18 European Psychologist 12.

10 C. S. Holling, ‘Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems’, (1973) 4 Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 1.

11 B. Walker et al., ‘Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability in Social Ecological Systems’, (2004) 9 Ecology and Society 9.

12 UNDP, supra note 6, at 16.

13 F. S. Brand and K. Jax, ‘Focusing the Meaning(s) of Resilience: Resilience as a Descriptive Concept and a Boundary Object’, (2007) 12 Ecology and Society 23.

14 S. Farber, ‘Economic Resilience and Economic Policy’, (1995) 15 Ecological Economics 105; A. A. Batabyal, ‘The Concept of Resilience: Retrospect and Prospect’, (1998) 3 Environment and Development Economics 235; W. A. Brock et al., ‘Resilience and Sustainability: The Economic Analysis of Nonlinear Dynamic Systems’, in L. H. Gunderson and C. S. Holling (eds.), Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems (2002); C. A. Perrings, ‘Resilience and Sustainable Development’, (2006) 11 Environment and Development Economics 417.

15 P. Olsson et al., ‘Shooting the Rapids: Navigating Transitions to Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems’, (2006) 11 Ecology and Society 18.

16 W. N. Adger, ‘Social and Ecological Resilience: Are They Related?’, (2000) 24 Progress in Human Geography 347.

17 S. T. A. Pickett et al., ‘Resilient Cities: Meaning, Models, and Metaphor for Integrating the Ecological, Socio-Economic, and Planning Realms’, (2004) 69 Landscape and Urban Planning 369.

18 D. Cohen, ‘“Hybrid” Justice in East Timor, Sierra Leone, and Cambodia: “Lessons Learned” and Prospects for the Future’, (2007) 43 Stanford Journal of International Law 1, at 4.

19 L. A. Dickinson, ‘The Promise of Hybrid Courts’, (2003) 97 American Journal of International Law 310 (emphasis added).

20 Mendez, supra note 4, at 70.

21 A. Cassese, ‘The Role of Internationalised Courts and Tribunals in the Fight Against International Criminality’, in C. Romano et al. (eds.), Internationalized Criminal Courts and Tribunals: Sierra Leone, East Timor, Kosovo, and Cambodia (2004), 6.

22 Mendez, supra note 4, at 70.

23 P. M. Wald, ‘Accountability for War Crimes: What Roles for National, International, and Hybrid Tribunals?’, (2004) 98 American Society of International Law: Proceedings of Annual Meeting 192.

24 Cohen, supra note 18, at 5.

25 Cassese, supra note 21, at 6.

26 O. Martin-Ortega and J. Herman, ‘Hybrid Tribunals: Interaction and Resistance in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Cambodia’, in O. P. Richmond and A. Mitchell (eds.), Hybrid Forms of Peace: From Everyday Agency to Post-Liberalism (2012), 84.

27 T. Hamilton and M. Ramsden, ‘The Politicisation of Hybrid Courts: Observations from the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia’, (2014) 14 International Criminal Law Review 115, at 120.

28 A. Hinton, The Justice Façade: Trials of Transition in Cambodia (2018).

29 Hamilton and Ramsden, supra note 27; Hinton, supra note 28; Martin-Ortega and Herman, supra note 26.

30 Martin-Ortega and Herman, ibid., at 75.

31 2003 Agreement between the United Nations and the Royal Government of Cambodia concerning the prosecution under Cambodian law of crimes committed during the period of Democratic Kampuchea (ECCC Agreement), available at www.eccc.gov.kh/sites/default/files/legal-documents/Agreement_between_UN_and_RGC.pdf; 2004 Law to Amend the 2001 Law on the Establishment of the Extraordinary Chambers, available at www.eccc.gov.kh/sites/default/files/legal-documents/Kram_and_KR_Law_amendments_27_Oct_2004_--_Eng.pdf.

32 Cohen, supra note 18, at 9–10.

33 S. Linton, ‘Rising from the Ashes: The Creation of a Viable Criminal Justice System in East Timor’, (2001) 25 Melbourne University Law Review 145, at 150.

34 J. Dermody, ‘Beyond Good Intentions: Can Hybrid Tribunals Work After Unilateral Intervention’, (2006) 30 Hastings International and Comparative Law Review 77; M. P. Scharf, ‘Is It International Enough - A Critique of the Iraqi Special Tribunal in Light of the Goals of International Justice’, (2004) 2 Journal of International Criminal Justice 330.

35 J. E. Wetzel and Y. Mitri, ‘The Special Tribunal for Lebanon: A Court Off the Shelf for a Divided Country’, (2008) 7 Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 81, at 95.

36 E. Cimiotta, ‘The First Steps of the Extraordinary African Chambers: A New Mixed Criminal Tribunal?’, (2015) 13 Journal of International Criminal Justice 177.

37 Cimiotta, supra note 1, at 55–7.

38 T. Ingadottir, ‘The Financing of Internationalized Criminal Courts and Tribunals’, in C. Romano et al. (eds.), Internationalized Criminal Courts and Tribunals: Sierra Leone, East Timor, Kosovo, and Cambodia (2004).

39 Cohen, supra note 18, at 13; The Central African Republic’s Special Criminal Court will be funded in a similar fashion. See P. I. Labuda, ‘The Special Criminal Court in the Central African Republic’, (2017) 15 Journal of International Criminal Justice 175, at 201.

40 Dickinson, supra note 19, at 307; Linton, supra note 33, at 149; Cohen, supra note 18, at 14–6.

41 Cohen, ibid., at 21–2.

42 Martin-Ortega and Herman, supra note 26, at 80.

43 Ibid., at 77.

44 C. L. Sriram, ‘Globalising Justice: From Universal Jurisdiction to Mixed Tribunals’, (2004) 22 Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 7–32.

45 Wetzel and Mitri, supra note 35, at 96.

46 Cimiotta, supra note 1.

47 Labuda, supra note 39.

48 Martin-Ortega and Herman, supra note 26, at 76.

49 OHCHR, supra note 4, at 11.

50 Hinton, supra note 28, at 250.

51 Dickinson, supra note 19, at 297.

52 H. Strohmeyer, ‘Making Multilateral Interventions Work: The U.N. and the Creation of Transitional Justice Systems in Kosovo and East Timor’, (2001) 25 Fletcher Forum of World Affairs 107, at 112–13.

53 E. Wiebelhaus-Brahm, ‘After Shocks: Exploring the Relationships between Transitional Justice and Resilience in Post-Conflict Societies’, in R. Duthie and P. Seils (eds.), Justice Mosaics: How Context Shapes Transitional Justice in Fractured Societies (2017).

54 A. K. Bujones et al., A Framework for Analyzing Resilience In Fragile and Conflict-Affected Situations, (2013) Columbia/SIPA for USAID, available at sipa.columbia.edu/academics/capstone-projects/framework-analyzing-resilience-fragile-and-conflict-affected-situations.

55 D. Narayan et al., ‘Building States from the Bottom Up in Conflict-Affected Countries’, in D. Narayan and P. L. Petesch (eds.), Moving out of poverty, Rising from the Ashes of Conflict, Vol. 4 (2010).

56 J. L. Snyder and L. Vinjamuri, ‘Trials and Errors: Principle and Pragmatism in Strategies of International Justice’, (2003) 28 International Security 5; K. Sikkink, The Justice Cascade: How Human Rights Prosecutions Are Changing World Politics (2011); G. Dancy and E. Wiebelhaus-Brahm, ‘The Impact of Criminal Prosecutions during Intrastate Conflict’, (2018) 55 Journal of Peace Research 47.

57 S. Williams, ‘The Specialist Chambers of Kosovo’, (2016) 14 Journal of International Criminal Justice 25; G. Visoka, Assessing the Potential Impact of the Kosovo Specialist Court, (2017) Impunity Watch & PAX.

58 B. Stewart and E. Wiebelhaus-Brahm, ‘The Quantitative Turn in Transitional Justice Research: What Have We Learned About Impact?’, (2017) 1 Transitional Justice Review 97.

59 D. Narayan et al., Voices of the Poor, Crying Out for Change, Vol. 2 (2000).

60 P. de Greiff, ‘Articulating the Links Between Transitional Justice and Development: Justice and Social Integration’, in P. de Greiff and R. Duthie (eds.), Transitional Justice and Development: Making Connections (2009); P. de Greiff, ‘Truth-Telling and the Rule of Law’, in T. A. Borer (ed.), Telling the Truths, Truth Telling and Peacebuilding in Post-Conflict Societies (2006).

61 Canadian Centre for Community Renewal, ‘The Community Resilience Manual’ (2000), available at communityrenewal.ca/sites/all/files/resource/P200_0.pdf; D. R. Godschalk, ‘Urban Hazard Mitigation: Creating Resilient Cities’, (2003) 4 Natural Hazards Review 136.

62 B. Pouligny, The Resilience Approach to Peacebuilding: A New Conceptual Framework, (2014) United States Institute of Peace, available at www.usip.org/sites/default/files/page/pdf/Insights_Summer_2014.pdf, at 6.

63 P. Rapoza, ‘Hybrid Criminal Tribunals and the Concept of Ownership: Who Owns the Process?’, (2006) 21 American University International Law Review 525.

64 H. Strohmeyer, ‘Collapse and Reconstruction of a Judicial System: The United Nations Missions in Kosovo and East Timor’, (2001) 95 American Journal of International Law 46, at 50, 57.

65 H. Bertelman, ‘International Standards and National Ownership? Judicial Independence in Hybrid Courts: The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia’, (2010) 79 Nordic Journal of International Law 341; Hamilton and Ramsden, supra note 27.

66 Dickinson, supra note 19, at 306.

67 Visoka, supra note 57, at 25.

68 OHCHR, supra note 4; J. Stromseth, ‘Justice on the Ground: Can International Criminal Courts Strengthen Domestic Rule of Law in Post-Conflict Societies?’, (2009) 1 Hague Journal on the Rule of Law 87; Cassese, supra note 21.

69 OHCHR, ibid., at 4–5. For a critique of this expansive definition and a call to focus specifically on ‘the body of legal rules, innovative practices, and norms’ produced by hybrids see Jalloh, supra note 2, at 2–3.

70 Sriram, supra note 4, at 498.

71 Visoka, supra note 57, at 26.

72 OHCHR, supra note 4, at 17–8.

73 Dittrich, supra note 4, at 676.

74 Visoka, supra note 57, at 24.

75 M. Holvoet and P. de Hert, ‘International Criminal Law as Global Law: An Assessment of the Hybrid Tribunals’, (2012) 17 Tilburg Law Review 228, at 232.

76 Martin-Ortega and Herman, supra note 26, at 77.

77 Ibid., at 78.

78 Holvoet and de Hert, supra note 75, at 231.

79 Stromseth, supra note 68, at 95; The benefits, however, were minimal beyond SCSL staff. See A. Chehtman and R. Mackenzie, Capacity Development in International Criminal Justice: A Mapping Exercise of Existing Practice, (2009) DOMAC Project.

80 Cohen, supra note 18, at 17.

81 C. Sperfeldt, ‘Cambodian Civil Society and the Khmer Rouge Tribunal’, (2012) 6 International Journal of Transitional Justice 149.

82 E. E. Stensrud, ‘New Dilemmas in Transitional Justice: Lessons from the Mixed Courts in Sierra Leone and Cambodia’, (2009) 46 Journal of Peace Research 5, at 10.

83 Martin-Ortega and Herman, supra note 26, at 79.

84 Mendez, supra note 4, at 83.

85 International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ), The Special Court of Sierra Leone Under Scrutiny (2006), at 38, 40.

86 Stromseth, supra note 68, at 96.

87 Ibid.

88 J. P. Pham, ‘A Viable Model for International Criminal Justice: The Special Court for Sierra Leone’, (2006) 19 New York International Law Review 37, at 106–7.

89 Martin-Ortega and Herman, supra note 26, at 81; Hinton, supra note 28.

90 Sriram, supra note 4, at 493.

91 Bertelman, supra note 65, at 366.

92 P. Pham et al., So We Will Never Forget: A Population-Based Survey on Attitudes About Social Reconstruction and the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, (2009) Harvard Humanitarian Initiative, at 19.

93 OHCHR, supra note 4; Stromseth, supra note 68; Cassese, supra note 21.

94 OHCHR, ibid., at 19–20.

95 Cohen, supra note 18, at 18.

96 N. H. Pentelovitch, ‘Seeing Justice Done: The Importance of Prioritizing Outreach Efforts at International Criminal Tribunals’, (2008) 39 Georgetown Journal of International Law 455.

97 Sriram, supra note 4, at 495–6.

98 ICTJ, supra note 85, at 37–8.

99 Martin-Ortega and Herman, supra note 26, at 81.

100 B. Ivanišević, The War Crimes Chamber in Bosnia and Herzegovina: From Hybrid to Domestic Court (2008) ICTJ, at 33.

101 Martin-Ortega and Herman, supra note 26, at 84.

102 M. B. Pratt, Nation-Wide Survey on Public Perceptions of the Special Court for Sierra Leone (2007); Stromseth, supra note 68, at 94; T. Perriello and M. Wierda, The Special Court for Sierra Leone Under Scrutiny, (2006) ICTJ; R. Kerr and J. Lincoln, The Special Court for Sierra Leone: Outreach, Legacy and Impact, (2008) King’s College London.

103 T. Perriello and M. Wierda, Lessons from the Deployment of International Judges and Prosecutors in Kosovo, (2006) ICTJ, at 2.

104 OHCHR, supra note 4, at 8.

105 The SCSL was innovative in its legacy planning from the beginning. See Dittrich, supra note 4.

106 ICTJ, supra note 85, at 38.

107 OHCHR, supra note 4, at 12–14.

108 Similarly, ‘[s]ome Sierra Leoneans from outside Freetown feel alienated give that the [Peace M]useum is located in the capital so again outside their reach, on the premises of the SCSL whose physical site was controversial since the beginning’. See Dittrich, supra note 4, at 678.

109 Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) Press Release, ‘Presentation of Evidence in the “Duch-Trial” Concluded’, 2009, available at www.eccc.gov.kh/en/articles/presentation-evidence-innbsp-ldquoduch-trialrdquoconcluded.

110 Martin-Ortega and Herman, supra note 26, at 83; L. J. Nettelfield, Courting Democracy in Bosnia and Herzegovina: The Hague Tribunal’s Impact in a Postwar State (2010), 247.

111 Stromseth, supra note 68.

112 Cohen, supra note 18, at 36.

113 Stewart and Wiebelhaus-Brahm, supra note 58; O. N. T. Thoms et al., ‘State-Level Effects of Transitional Justice: What Do We Know?’, (2010) 4 International Journal of Transitional Justice 1; D. Mendeloff, ‘Truth-Seeking, Truth-Telling and Post-Conflict Peacebuilding: Curb the Enthusiasm?’, (2004) 6 International Studies Review 355; D. Mendeloff, ‘Trauma and Vengeance: Assessing the Psychological and Emotional Effects of Post-Conflict Justice’, (2009) 31 Human Rights Quarterly 592.

114 OHCHR, supra note 4, at 5.

115 Menkhaus, supra note 7, at 6.

116 S. Robins and E. Wilson, ‘Participatory Methodologies with Victims: An Emancipatory Approach to Transitional Justice Research’, (2015) 30 Canadian Journal of Law and Society 219.

117 D. Chandler, Resilience: The Governance of Complexity (2014), 27.

118 D. Chandler, ‘Beyond Neoliberalism: Resilience, the New Art of Governing Complexity’, (2014) 2 Resilience 47, at 61.

119 J. Joseph, ‘Resilience as Embedded Neoliberalism: A Governmentality Approach’, (2013) 1 Resilience 38; A. Mckeown and J. Glenn, ‘The Rise of Resilience after the Financial Crises: A Case of Neoliberalism Rebooted?’, (2018) 44 Review of International Studies 193.

120 B. Evans and J. Reid, ‘Dangerously Exposed: The Life and Death of the Resilient Subject’, (2013) 1 Resilience 83, at 85.

121 Joseph, supra note 119, at 42.