international justice

The biggest winners of a weakened international justice system are the many authoritarian and dictatorial leaders in the world.

The record shows that, if this is the only feasible route to accountability for now, countries will require additional support at the UN level to achieve accountability.

For more than a decade, in one atrocity case after another, justice is delayed, denied, or even reversed, as the government pursues impunity.

The credibility of the Human Rights Council and the UN system, given its “grave failure” in the past, depends on accountability for Sri Lanka’s atrocities.

The continuing impunity in the wartime killing of a revered editor and the recent escalation of rights abuses expose the government's recalcitrance.

She notes the Sri Lankan government has made clear that it has no intention of pursuing accountability for atrocities committed during the civil war.

Mapping a quarter century of war shows the patterns of violations that demand meaningful and credible truth and accountability processes.

The record is abundantly clear that the country’s domestic mechanisms lack effectiveness and credibility. This is a gap that the UN uniquely can fill.

Tech is heralded as a way to increase access and participation in international justice. But what are the costs of these digital justice mechanisms?

For the survivors of atrocities, justice may mean something very different from the remote procedures of the ICC. How can international systems of accountability center local justice?

Given the control that Prime Minister Hun Sen’s ruling party wields over the judiciary, their odds of getting a fair trial are slim.

"The international community clearly has a political role to play, but a closer examination of how international accountability relates to domestic political dynamics is also critical,…