After Mass Atrocity: Pragmatism and Foresight in the Pursuit of Post-Conflict Justice

Written By Miranda Sieg, Former Staff Writer

This essay evaluates the logic of international criminal justice for post-conflict states. Specifically, it questions whether transitional justice is peace-promoting or conflict-inducing. It posits that the immediate, post-conflict political transition is the critical moment for instituting durable peace. Policy-makers and human rights advocates would therefore be wise to temper their well-meaning, yet potentially destabilizing, calls for justice in the service of peace. In assessing this tension, the relative merits and shortcomings of both amnesties and prosecutions will be discussed. Ultimately, transitional justice must address the victims of mass atrocity through a "forward-looking" paradigm.

Miranda Sieg, Former Staff Writer

Miranda Sieg is a second-year Masters Student at the George Washington University Elliott School of International Affairs studying Security, Development and Conflict Resolution. She is primarily focused on education and cross-cultural violence issues in East and Southeast Asia, but has recently developed an interest in post-conflict development and the integration of refugees and at risk migrants. Miranda spent two and a half years studying and working in Japan and traveling extensively in East and Southeast Asia. She currently works for the International Education Program at GW and is a Presidential Management Fellow Finalist and GW UNESCO Fellow.

Previous

Self Impact Assessment: A Comparative Analysis of Development and Human Rights Non Governmental Organizations
Next

Hezbollah and Iran: The new resistance model and why it will fail