No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
New histories and new laws: Crimes against humanity at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 September 2019
Abstract
This article looks at the development of the concept of crimes against humanity at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). It contends that the ICTR’s interpretation of crimes against humanity is generally seen by international lawyers as a commendable, but unsurprising, step in the historical development of this category. In much the same way, the ICTR’s historical account is considered to be a standard attempt by a war crimes court to relate a liberal history of crimes against humanity in a way that upholds civilized values. Yet, although the historical and legal work of the ICTR appear unexceptional, this article will argue that they do demonstrate a particular conceptual approach towards warfare, history, humanity, and the nature of international law. Moreover, this is a conceptual approach that is quite different to that taken by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. The article suggests that these differences, and the invisibility of the change, are due to the ICTR’s reliance on familiar narrative tropes. These narratives were established through poststructuralist theory but could be expressed in a variety of more or (often) less theoretical forms. By exploring the influence of these narratives on the Tribunal, it is possible to examine some of the ways in which conceptual change is facilitated and knowledge is created in international law. In particular, it shows how theories that are often considered marginal to international law have had a significant impact on some of the central provisions of international humanitarian law.
Keywords
- Type
- ORIGINAL ARTICLE
- Information
- Copyright
- © Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law 2019
References
1 See, e.g., R. Teitel, Humanity’s Law (2011); D. Kennedy, The Dark Sides of Virtue (2004); A. Alexander, ‘A Short History of International Humanitarian Law’, (2015) 26 EJIL 109.
2 D. Luban, ‘A Theory of Crimes against Humanity’, (2004) 29 YJIL 85, at 95; L. Douglas, The Memory of Judgment (2001), 48.
3 T. Meron, ‘The Humanization of Humanitarian Law’, (2000) 94 AJIL 239, at 265; Davids, J., ‘From Crimes against Humanity to Human Rights Crimes’, (2012) 18 New England Journal of International and Comparative Law 225 Google Scholar, at 232.
4 See, e.g., N. Geras, Crimes against Humanity: Birth of a Concept (2011), at 4; M. Cherif Bassiouni, Crimes Against Humanity: Historical Evolution and Contemporary Application (2011), 86, at 95; Cerone, J., ‘The Jurisprudential Contributions of the ICTR to the Legal Definition of Crimes against Humanity - The Evolution of the Nexus Requirement’, (2008) 14 New England Journal of International and Comparative Law 191 Google Scholar, at 191; Badar, M., ‘From the Nuremberg Charter to the Rome Statute: Defining the Elements of Crimes against Humanity’, (2004) 5 San Diego International Law Journal 73 Google Scholar, at 77.
5 Lippman, M., ‘Crimes Against Humanity’, (1997) 17 Boston College Third World Law Journal 171 Google Scholar, at 172, 201.
6 Douglas, supra note 2, at 77.
7 Ibid., at 56, 64; L. Stonebridge, The Judicial Imagination (2011), 25; Osiel, M., ‘Ever Again: Legal Remembrance of Administrative Massacre’, (1995) 144 UPaLRev 463 Google Scholar, at 533.
8 L. Sadat, ‘Crimes Against Humanity in the Modern Age’, (2013) 107 AJIL 334, at 347; Mettraux, G., ‘Crimes against Humanity in the Jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda’, (2002) 43 HarvIntlLJ 237 Google Scholar, at 241.
9 Magnarella, P., ‘Some Milestones and Achievements at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda’, (1997) 11 FlaJIntlL 517 Google Scholar, at 531.
10 P. Akhavan, ‘Contributions of the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda to Development of Definitions of Crimes against Humanity and Genocide’, (2000) 94 ASIL 279, at 279.
11 Alexander, A., ‘Lenin at Nuremberg: Anti-Imperialism and the Juridification of Crimes against Humanity’, in Orford, A. (ed.), Revolutions in International Law Google Scholar (forthcoming).
12 See, e.g., Mégret, F., ‘From “Savages” to “Unlawful Combatants”: A Postcolonial Look at International Law’s “Other”’, in Orford, A. (ed.), International Law and its Others (2006)Google Scholar; Nielsen, C., ‘From Nuremberg to the Hague: The Civilizing Mission of International Criminal Law’, (2008) 14 Auckland University Law Review 81 Google Scholar.
13 See, e.g., Osiel, supra note 7; Nielsen, supra note 12.
14 See, e.g., A. Becker Lorca, Mestizo International Law: A Global Intellectual History 1842–1933 (2014); B. Rajagopal, International Law from Below: Development, Social Movements and Third World Resistance (2003); M. Craven, The Decolonization of International Law (2007).
15 R. Jackson, The Case against the Nazi War Criminals: Opening Statement for the United States of America (1946), at 89.
16 Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Redacted Transcript, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, T.Ch. I., 9 January 1997, at 23.
17 See, e.g., S. Chesterman, ‘Never Again… and Again: Law, Order, and the Gender of War Crimes in Bosnia and Beyond’, (1997) 22 YJIL 299, at 322; M. Osiel, Mass Atrocity, Collective Memory and the Law (1997), at 38; Bassiouni, M. C., ‘Searching for Peace and Achieving Justice: The Need for Accountability’, (1996) 59 Law and Contemporary Problems 9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 27.
18 R. H. Minear, Victor’s Justice: The Tokyo War Crimes Trials (1972), at 126.
19 Howland, T. and Calathes, W., ‘The UN’s International Criminal Tribunal: Is it Justice or Jingoism for Rwanda?’, (1998) 39 Virginia Journal of International Law 135 Google Scholar, at 144.
20 Schiller, R. E., ‘The Strawhorsemen of the Apocalypse: Relativism and the Historian as Expert Witness’, (1998) 49 Hastings Law Journal 117 Google Scholar.
21 Eltringham, N., ‘Illuminating the Broader Context: Anthropological and Historical Knowledge at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda’, (2013) 19 Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 338 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 341–2.
22 R. J. Goldstone, ‘Justice as a Tool for Peace-Making: Truth Commissions and International Criminal Tribunals’, (1996) 28 NYJILP 485, at 489.
23 Nielsen, supra note 12, at 89.
24 See, e.g., H. Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem (1994), 19; A. Finkielkraut, Remembering in Vain: The Klaus Barbie Trial and Crimes against Humanity (1992), at 321; Stonebridge, supra note 7, at 19.
25 Buss, D., ‘Expert Witnesses and International War Crimes Trials: Making Sense of Large-Scale Violence in Rwanda’, in Zarkov, D. and Glasius, M. (eds.), Narratives of Justice in and out of the Courtroom (2014), 25 Google Scholar.
26 Alvarez, J. E., ‘Lessons from the Akayesu Judgment’, (1999) 5 ILSAJIntl&CompL 359 Google Scholar, at 360; Magnarella, supra note 9, at 518.
27 Buss, supra note 25, at 28.
28 Douglas, supra note 2, at 79.
29 R. Wilson, Writing History in International Criminal Trials (2011), at 46. See also K. Moghalu, Rwanda’s Genocide: The Politics of Global Justice (2005), at 6.
30 Ibid.
31 Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Judgement, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, T.Ch. I., 2 September 1998, at para. 78.
32 Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana, Judgement, Case No. ICTR-95-1-T, T.Ch. II., 21 May 1999, at para. 65.
33 Ibid., at para. 34.
34 Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Redacted Transcript, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, T.Ch. I., 11 February 1997, at 6.
35 Akayesu Judgment, supra note 31, at para. 172.
36 Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Redacted Transcript, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, T.Ch. I., 11 February 1997, at 31.
37 Ibid., at 37–8.
38 Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana, Judgement, Case No. ICTR-95-1-T, T.Ch. II., 21 May 1999, at para. 36.
39 Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Redacted Transcript, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, T.Ch. I., 11 February 1997, at 50.
40 Ibid., at 35.
41 Kayishema and Ruzindana, supra note 38, at para. 34. Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Redacted Transcript, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, T.Ch. I., 12 February 1997, at 9.
42 Akayesu Judgment, supra note 31, at para. 116.
43 Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Redacted Transcript, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, T.Ch. I., 11 February 1997, at 32–3.
44 Ibid., at 33–4.
45 Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Redacted Transcript, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, T. Ch. I., 19 March 1998, at 35.
46 Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Redacted Transcript, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, T. Ch. I., 23 May 1997, at 22–3.
47 Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Redacted Transcript, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, T. Ch. I., 25 February 1998, at 13.
48 Ibid., at 160–1.
49 Ibid., at 166.
50 Ibid., at 166.
51 Ibid., at 154.
52 Ibid., at 179.
53 Ibid., at 197.
54 Ibid.
55 Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Redacted Transcript, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, T.Ch. I., 26 February 1998, at 73–5.
56 Ibid., at 79.
57 Akayesu Judgment, supra note 31, at paras. 105–8.
58 Ibid., at paras. 81–3; Kayishema and Ruzindana, supra note 38, at para. 35.
59 R. Young, Postcolonialism: A Historical Introduction (2001), 412–13. See also B. Bush, Imperialism and Postcolonialism (2006), 52.
60 D. Kennedy, ‘Imperial History and Post-Colonial Theory’, (1996) The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 345, at 346; S. Burney, ‘Orientalism: The Making of the Other’, (2012) 417 Counterpoints 23, at 23.
61 Ibid.; Bush, supra note 59, at 57.
62 Kennedy, supra note 60, at 347.
63 Spivak, G. C., ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’, in Nelson, C. and Grossberg, L. (eds.), Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture (1988), at 83 Google Scholar.
64 V. Mudimbe, The Invention of Africa: Gnosis, Philosophy, and the Order of Knowledge (1988), at 20.
65 A. Mbembe, On the Postcolony (2001), at 9.
66 Schmidt, H., ‘The Future of Africa’s Past: Observations on the Discipline’, (2007) 34 History in Africa 453 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hegel, The Philosophy of History (1956), 91.
67 Bush, supra note 59, at 163.
68 Mazrui, A., ‘Edward Said, Africa, and Cultural Criticism’, (2005) 36 Research in African Literatures 68, at 69 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 77.
69 E.g., G. Prunier, The Rwanda Crisis: History of a Genocide (1995); A. Destexhe, Rwanda and Genocide in the Twentieth Century (1995); C. Taylor, Sacrifice as Terror: The Rwandan Genocide of 1994 (1999).
70 Prunier, supra note 69, at xi.
71 Ibid., at 9.
72 Destexhe, supra note 69, at 36.
73 Ibid., at 71.
74 Prunier, supra note 69, at 40.
75 M. Kaldor, New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era (1999), 19–20; H. Münkler, The New Wars (2005).
76 Münkler, ibid., at 84–5.
77 Kaldor, supra note 75, at 6.
78 Berdal, M., ‘The “New Wars” Thesis Revisited’, in Strachan, H. and Scheipers, S. (eds.), The Changing Character of War (2011), 109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 116–17. See Kaldor, supra note 75, at 81.
79 Kaldor, ibid., at 7.
80 Roberts, A., ‘Lives and Statistics: Are 90% of War Victims Civilians?’, (2010) 52 Survival 115 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 126; Kaldor, supra note 75, at 33.
81 Berdal, supra note 78, at 116.
82 Roberts, supra note 80, at 128; Berdal, supra note 78, at 114–15.
83 C. Newbury, The Cohesion of Oppression (1988).
84 Ibid., at 212.
85 Ibid., at 14–16.
86 Newbury, D. and Newbury, C., ‘Bringing the Peasants Back In: Agrarian Themes in the Construction and Corrosion of Statist Historiography in Rwanda’, (2000) 105 The American Historical Review 832 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 840.
87 Reyntjens, F., ‘Rwanda: Genocide and Beyond’, (1996) 9 Journal of Refugee Studies 240 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 243.
88 Newbury, D., ‘Canonical Conventions in Rwanda: Four Myths of Recent Historiography in Central Africa’, (2012) 39 History in Africa 41 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 59.
89 Ibid.
90 Ibid.
91 See, e.g., Reyntjens, supra note 87.
92 E. Jessee, Negotiating Genocide in Rwanda (2017), at 253; A. Guichaoua, From War to Genocide: Criminal Politics in Rwanda 1990-1994 (2015), at 336.
93 Wilson, supra note 29, at 46.
94 Guichaoua, supra note 92, at 336.
95 Ibid., at 322
96 See, e.g., Darian-Smith, E., ‘Postcolonialism: A Brief Introduction’, (1996) 5 Social & Legal Studies 291 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 300; J. Hiddleston, Understanding Postcolonialism (2014), at 173.
97 Fitzpatrick, P., ‘Passions out of Place: Law, Incommensurability and Resistance’, (1995) VI Law and Critique 95 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 105.
98 Cass, D., ‘Navigating the Newstream: Recent Critical Scholarship in International Law’, (1996) 65 NordicJIL 341 Google Scholar.
99 Fitzpatrick, supra note 97, at 105.
100 See, e.g., Riles, A., ‘The View from the International Plane: Perspective and Scale in the Architecture of Colonial International Law’, (1995) VI Law and Critique Google Scholar 39–54.
101 A. Anghie, ‘Finding the Peripheries: Sovereignty and Colonialism in Nineteenth-Century International Law’, (1999) 40 HILJ 1, at 67.
102 Anghie, A., ‘Francisco De Vitoria and the Colonial of International Law’, (1996) 5 Social & Legal Studies 321 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 333.
103 Nielsen, supra note 12; Mégret, supra note 12.
104 Kalajdzic, J., ‘Rape, Representation and Rights: Permeating International Law with the Voices of Women’, (1996) 21 Queens Law Journal 457 Google Scholar, at 460.
105 Gardam, J., ‘The Law of Armed Conflict: A Gendered Regime’, (1993) 25 StudTransnatlLegalPoly 171 Google Scholar, at 182 and 190.
106 Gardam, J., ‘Gender and Non-combatant Immunity’, (1993) 3 TransnatlL&ContempProbs 345 Google Scholar, at 349.
107 Ibid.
108 Gardam, supra note 105, at 175.
109 R. Brooks, ‘Feminism and International Law: An Opportunity for Transformation’, (2002) 14 YJLF 345, at 349.
110 Gardam, supra note 106, at 350.
111 Ibid., at 353.
112 Sellers, P. V., ‘The Cultural Value of Sexual Violence’, (1990) 93 ASIL Proceedings 312 Google Scholar, at 323.
113 See, e.g., Sellers, P. V., ‘Arriving at Rwanda: Extension of Sexual Assault Prosecution Under the Statutes of the Ad Hoc International Criminal Tribunals’, (1996) 90 ASIL Proceedings 605 Google Scholar; C. Chinkin, ‘Rape and Sexual Abuse of Women in International Law’, (1994) 5 EJIL 326, at 331–2; Copelon, R. ‘Surfacing Gender: Re-Engraving Crimes Against Women in Humanitarian Law’, (1994) 5 Hastings Women’s Law Journal 243 Google Scholar, at 246; Halley, J., ‘Rape at Rome: Feminist Interventions in the Criminalization of Sex-Related Violence in Positive International Criminal Law’, (2008–2009) 30 Michigan Journal of International Law 1 Google Scholar.
114 Enloe, C., ‘Have the Bosnian Rapes Opened a New Era of Feminist Consciousness?’, in Stiglmayer, A. (ed.), Mass Rape: the War Against Women in Bosnia Herzegovina (1994), at 222 Google Scholar.
115 See, e.g., H. Charlesworth and C. Chinkin, The Boundaries of International Law: A Feminist Analysis (2000), at 315.
116 See, e.g., Chinkin, supra note 113, at 333.
117 Some feminists objected to this conflation of rape with genocide, insisting that rape be seen as a crime against women rather than a nation; their argument was unsuccessful. See, e.g., Copelon, supra note 113, at 246.
118 C. A. MacKinnon, ‘Rape, Genocide, and Women’s Human Rights’, (1994) 17 HarvWomen’sLJ 5, at 8.
119 Chinkin, supra note 113, at 333.
120 Ibid.
121 Russell-Brown, S. L., ‘Rape as an Act of Genocide’, (2003) 21 BerkeleyJIntlL 350 Google Scholar, at 355.
122 Kohn, E. A., ‘Rape as a Weapon of War: Women’s Human Rights during the Dissolution of Yugoslavia’, (1994) 24 Golden Gate U. L. Rev. 199 Google Scholar, at 204.
123 Aydelott, D., ‘Mass Rape during War: Prosecuting Bosnian Rapists under International Law’, (1993) 7 Emory International Law Review 585 Google Scholar, at 602: citing statement of Dr. Stanley Ducharme, Boston University Medical Center in Nightline: Rape as a Weapon of War Against Bosnian Muslims (ABC television broadcast, 14 January 1993).
124 T. Meron, ‘Rape as a Crime Under International Humanitarian Law’, (1993) 87 AJIL 424, at 427; Chinkin, supra note 113, at 333.
125 Halley, supra note 113, at 12–13; G. Nelaeva, ‘The Impact of Transnational Advocacy Networks on the Prosecution of Wartime Rape and Sexual Violence: The Case of the ICTR’, (2010) 85 International Social Science Review 3, at 7; J. Green et al., ‘Affecting the Rules for the Prosection of Rape and Other Gender-Based Violence Before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia: A Feminist Proposal and Critique’, (1994) HWLJ 171, at 173–5.
126 Cass, supra note 98, ascribes this understanding to the movement, at 345 and 370. See comments to this effect in Anghie, A. and Chimni, B., ‘Third World Approaches to International Law and Individual Responsibility in Internal Conflict’, (2004) 36 Studies in Transnational Legal Policy 185 Google Scholar, at 186; Charlesworth, H., ‘Feminist Critiques of International Law and their Critics’, (1995) 13 Third World Legal Studies 1 Google Scholar, at 1; Chinkin, C., ‘Feminist Interventions Into International Law’, (1997) 19 Adelaide Law Review 13 Google Scholar, at 13.
127 D. Robinson and G. MacNeil, ‘The Tribunals and the Renaissance of International Law: Three Themes’, (2016) 110 AJIL 191, at 192–3.
128 Sadat, supra note 8, at 347.
129 Ibid.
130 Ibid.
131 Davids, supra note 3, at 226; Lippman, supra note 5, at 269; T. Meron, ‘The Continuing Role of Custom in the Formation of International Humanitarian Law’, (1996) 90 AJIL 238, at 242; T. Meron, ‘International Criminalization of Internal Atrocities’, (1995) 89 AJIL 554, at 557.
132 Akayesu Judgment, supra note 31, at para. 126.
133 Ibid., at para. 99.
134 Ibid., at para. 127.
135 Ibid., at para. 129.
136 Ibid., at para. 128.
137 M. Frulli, ‘Are Crimes against Humanity more Serious than War Crimes?’, (2001) 12 EJIL 329, at 345.
138 D. M. Amann, ‘Prosecutor v Akayesu. Case ICTR-96-4-T.International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, September 2, 1998’, (1999) 93 AJIL 195, at 198.
139 Akayesu Judgment, supra note 31, at para. 583.
140 Alvarez, supra note 26, at 360; Magnarella, supra note 9, at 531.
141 Robinson and MacNeil, supra note 127, at 193–4. Wilson, supra note 29, at 177, shows that this approach influenced later cases and textbooks. I should acknowledge that Wilson, ibid., at 173–83, argues that the subjective approach to ethnicity co-existed in the ICTR with a desire for objective proof of ethnicity or a preference for showing that the Tutsi were a stable and permanent group. However, unlike Wilson, I do not see this as a tension in the case law or an example of limited legal reasoning, but rather as a demonstration of pseudo-poststructuralist method, which is able to see identity as subjective and constructed while referring to artefacts that confirm this identity. The very fact that Wilson’s deconstruction considers this to be problematic, shows how much the meaning of the case law depends on theoretical tropes and approaches.
142 K. E. Carson, ‘Reconsidering the Theoretical Accuracy and Prosecutorial Effectiveness of International Tribunals’ ad hoc Approaches to Conceptualizing Crimes of Sexual Violence as War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity, and Acts of Genocide’, (2011–12) 39 FordhamUrbLJ 1249, at 1269.
143 J. Gardam and M. Jarvis, Women, Armed Conflict and International Law (2001), at 217.
144 Goldstone, R., ‘Prosecuting Rape as a War Crime’, (2002) 34 Case W. Res. J. Int’l L. 277 Google Scholar, at 280.
145 Nelaeva, supra note 125, at 7.
146 Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Redacted Transcript, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, T.Ch. I., 27 January 1997, at 101–2.
147 Ibid., at 8.
148 Akayesu Judgment, supra note 31, at paras. 22–5.
149 Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Redacted Transcript, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, T.Ch. I., 23 March 1998, at 15–16.
150 Ibid., at 144.
151 Akayesu Judgment, supra note 31, at para. 597.
152 Ibid.
153 Ibid., at para. 731.
154 I. De Roca, ‘Ten Years and Counting: The Development of International Law at the ICTR’, (2005–6) 12 New England Journal of International and Comparative Law 69, at 74. Akayesu Judgment, supra note 31, at para. 732.
155 Akayesu Judgment, supra note 31, at para. 731.
156 Short, J. M. H., ‘Sexual Violence as Genocide: The Developing Law of the International Criminal Tribunals and the International Criminal Court’, (2002–3) 8 MichJRace&L 503 Google Scholar, at 520.