Rethinking Wartime Justice: How Infeasible International Justice Impedes Peace

Abstract

This paper explores the effects of international judicial interventions on the protagonists of intrastate armed conflict. It posits that the enforcement of international criminal justice on states can hinder domestic peace processes unless it is backed up by credible commitments to coercive measures. This paper examines three case studies—the War in Darfur, the Kosovo War, and the Colombian conflict—to qualitatively explain the effects of international courts’ actions on the course of peace dialogues. The cases show that the effectiveness of externalized justice is conditioned by political developments, such as domestic military power dynamics, foreign support, and public opinion. These findings support the theory that the unilateral enforcement of international standards of accountability on war-torn societies undermines the domestic process of political bargaining among contending parties.