Between Law and Culture: Rwanda's Gacaca and Postcolonial Legality

This article recounts a clash between an establishment international nongovernmental organization (NGO), Amnesty International, and the government of Rwanda over the meaning of international human rights norms in a postconflict society. It offers a critical perspective on the mainstream human rights community's due process critique of Rwanda's gacaca— a system of over ten thousand local judicial bodies modeled on a precolonial communal dispute resolution the Rwandan government introduced to process the over one hundred twenty thousand suspects crowding its prisons following the 1994 genocide. This moment of norm contestation offers a lens to broader problems facing the human rights regime. It argues that Amnesty International's legalistic approach to the gacaca prevents it from appreciating its unique postcolonial hybrid form, and that other approaches, such as the one adopted by Penal Reform International, are perhaps better models for human rights praxis in the developing world.     

Personal and Political Reconciliation in Post-Genocide Rwanda

The majority of scholarly research on Rwanda currently focuses on determining the causes of and participation in the genocide. In this paper, we explore a variety of questions that have come to the forefront in post-genocide Rwanda. In particular, we are concerned with the prospects for peace and justice in the aftermath of the gross abuses of human rights that occurred and, to that end, we consider the potential uses and limits of restorative justice initiatives in the process of healing and reconciliation in Rwanda. We argue that restorative justice initiatives have moved the country closer toward reconciliation than retributive measures, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. That said, we also suggest that the Rwandan government, despite claims that it seeks to achieve reconciliation, has not shown a serious commitment to healing the wounds that persist between either individual Rwandans or the groups that they comprise. In the end, then, we make a case for the importance of pairing a comprehensive search for justice in Rwanda with a commitment to truth-telling and accountability by the victims and perpetrators of the genocide, as well as by current government officials.     

The Security Council in the Face of Genocide

The genocide in Rwanda will define for our generation the failureto intervene in the face of mass human rights abuses. The UNSecurity Council (the Council) was intimately involved in thisterrible event, with the decisions it took from October 1993,when a peacekeeping mission was created for Rwanda, having adecisive effect on what happened. This article details the crucialmeetings held by the Council in secret and informal sessionsand describes how a serious assessment of the situation in Rwandawas simply missing. It shows how the peacekeepers of the Council'smission to Rwanda were abandoned during the genocide and howthe efforts of these UN personnel to ease the suffering of theRwandan people were ignored by the Great Powers.     

在国内武装冲突中履行“保护的责任”的规范依据及其适用

“保护的责任”要求主权国家保护其人民免遭灭绝种族、战争罪、族裔清洗和危害人类罪之害,以及在其他各种情形下承担人权保护责任,当一国不能或不愿履行这一责任时,国际社会将有责任介入并采取相应的保护行动。在国内武装冲突中,容易发生对平民的生命财产以及民用设施的侵害,但是,主权国家应当怎样实施军事行动等行为才能符合人权保护责任的要求,对此,“保护的责任”本身并没有提供明确具体的标准和依据。为防止评估确认上的主观随意性,避免“保护的责任”被滥用成为干涉他国内政的工具,国际社会应当以国际人权法与国际人道法为基本依据,并主要通过对人道法规范在具体情势下的解释适用,来评估确认政府军事行动是否符合人权保护责任上的特定要求,以及是否构成不能或不愿履行“保护的责任”的严重情形,从而确定国际社会是否应当介入以及应采取的适当措施与方式。     

论卢旺达国际刑事法庭的管辖权

卢旺达国际刑事法庭的管辖权包括五类:其属地管辖权涵盖卢旺达及其邻国;其属人管辖权限于自然人;其属事管辖权包含种族灭绝罪、反人道罪和战争罪;其属时管辖权仅限于1994年度发生的犯罪,遭到卢旺达政府的批评;其并行管辖权和优先管辖权则与前南斯拉夫国际刑事法庭规定的同名管辖权有着质的区别。     

论卢旺达国际刑事法庭对国际刑法发展的贡献

卢旺达国际刑事法庭在1994年的建立和12年的审判实践经验为国际刑事法的发展作出了一定贡献.主要表现在:卢旺达国际刑事法庭是历史上首次建立专门审理非国际性武装冲突的国际刑事法庭;丰富了国际人道主义法的内容;扩大了对在非国际性武装冲突中犯罪的管辖权,进一步积累了国际刑事法院的审判经验,对国际刑法中的三大罪行的界定作出了新的阐释;推动了非洲国际法学的发展并在一定程度上促进了常设性国际刑事法院的建立.     

Restorative Justice and Collective Responsibility: Lessons for and from the Rwandan Genocide

Genocide struck Rwanda in 1994. Since then, national and international trials have endeavored to promote reconciliation, deterrence, peace, justice, and human rights. This article posits a disconnect between these trials and the attainment of their avowed goals. This disconnect emerges in part from the influential agendas of international lawyers who equate selective criminal prosecution with the "rule of law" and espouse criminal prosecution as the preferred and uniform response to mass atrocity. Creating a presumption in favor of criminal prosecution has dampened the need to explore whether such trials actually are suitable for the particular afflicted society. A socio-legal analysis suggests that Rwanda is precisely a place where constructed notions of what "rule of law" ought to be are supplanting the need to implement reconstructive policies that may be best for Rwanda. In particular, the populist nature of the Rwandan genocide, coupled with the vast level of victimization, suggest that a shame-based restorative approach may be more successful in promoting reconciliation, deterrence, and peace than the guilt-based retributive approach currently in vogue. This article argues that, when the law blames occurrences of genocidal evil largely on the existence of some evil people, it obscures the fact that so many people, to varying degrees of complicity, are required for this evil to result in so many deaths.     

当代国际刊法的新发展

大量证据显示国际刑事审判的展开促进了国际刑法的发展,而在国际刑法发展的进程中,出现了一系列新的观念和原则并逐渐得到国际社会的广泛认可,诸如灭绝种族罪、危害人类罪和战争罪的定义,以及合法性原则、补充性管辖原则、个人刑事责任原则和国际合作与司法协助原则等。国际刑事法院的建立在国际刑法制度发展中具有里程碑式的意义,联合国、联合国宪章以及联合国大会的一系列决议为国际刑法的发展发挥了至关重要的作用。     

The Major Powers on Trial

Faced with incontrovertible evidence of the most clear-cut caseof genocide possible, the international community failed todenounce the evil and to take action to stop the killings takingplace in Rwanda in 1994. Under the influence of three majorpowers—France, the United States and the United Kingdom—theUnited Nations was disabled from taking the necessary actionbecause the mass slaughter of the Tutsi people did not impingeon these powers' narrowly defined national interests. In thespecific case of France, there is evidence to show that thispower arguably aided and abetted the genocide. Yet, in contrast,these three powers were able to take decisive and quick actionwhen faced with an outraged domestic public in response to thehumanitarian crisis which unfolded from the genocide. Thereare many reasons why individuals and governments cannot bringthemselves to use the word ‘genocide’. In the caseof Rwanda, perhaps the enormity of the concept prevented thosewho were in the midst of it from recognizing it for what itactually was.     

Rwanda’s involvement in Eastern DRC: A criminal real options approach

This paper applies an alternative model to analyze criminal behaviour by countries based on real option models. Criminal options incorporate a richer framework than traditional cost-benefit models and allow examining the optimal timing of a crime as criminals have the possibility but not the obligation to commit a crime in the near future. From the model, we show how criminal states can actively manage their criminal options. More importantly, we show how the international community can optimally intervene pro-actively, by reducing the incentives for criminal states to execute their criminal options. These novel insights are then applied to two episodes of criminal behaviour by Rwanda in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC): the massive killing of Hutu refugees by the Rwanda Patriotic Army (RPA) in late 1996-early 1997 and the illegal exploitation of Congolese resources from August 1998 onwards. This article describes and assesses these activities from this real option perspective.     

SUBNATIONAL DETERMINANTS OF KILLING IN RWANDA*

Nearly one million people were killed in the Rwandan genocide in 1994. Although scholars have theorized why this violence occurred, we know comparatively less about how it unfolded. Accordingly, this article assesses the determinants of subnational levels of killing in 142 Rwandan communes by relying on data from the Rwandan Ministry of Local Administration and Community Development, the National University of Rwanda, and the 1991 Rwandan census. Fixed effects analyses reveal that top‐down and bottom‐up factors coalesced to influence violence across Rwanda. The state orchestrated and implemented the violence, and more violence occurred near the extremist center of the country as well as where state actors met strong opposition. Local conditions also shaped the violence, however, and indicators of low community cohesion and social control are associated with comparatively more violence. When put together, a unique model is introduced that integrates state conflict theories and social control theories of crime to explain subnational killing during the genocide in Rwanda.     

The ICTR Ten Years On: Back to the Nuremberg Paradigm?

Since his appointment in 2003, the Prosecutor of the InternationalCriminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) remains silent on the issueof prosecuting officials of the victorious Rwandan PatrioticFront (RPF). There is certainly no lack of credible reportsabout massive violations of human rights and international humanitarianlaw by the RPF both in Rwanda and in neighbouring countries,in 1994 and thereafter. The Prosecutor and the UN Security Council,despite lip service to the contrary, seem less than eager toconfront the government in Kigali. It is therefore to be fearedthat prosecutorial practice at the ICTR will follow the Nurembergparadigm. This one-sided policy may, however, have far-reachingconsequences.     

试论WTO和人权的可协调性

WTO与国际人权规则的关系愈来愈受到国际社会的关注。许多人权规则将直接或者间接影响WTO的运作 ,并为WTO和其规则发展提供指南。这些规则对WTO成员应当有一定的约束力。事实上 ,许多涉及人权 ,特别是经济权的规则已经被WTO规则接受和承认。WTO和人权关系的焦点在于两者之间是否存在着等级或者从属关系 ,即国际人权法是否有高于WTO规则效力的问题。从国际立法角度讲 ,WTO规则和国际人权法均为独立的国际法体系 ,但已经成为国际习惯法的某些人权规则有高于WTO规则的地位。从WTO的宗旨看 ,至少人权中的经济权是WTO追求的最主要目标之一。WTO和人权的关系应当在这些因素的基础上达成协调和统一。     

Divergent Approaches to Determining Responsibility for Genocide: The Darfur Commission of Inquiry and the ICJ's Judgment in the Genocide Case

Internationally sanctioned assessments of genocide are relativelyuncommon, and since genocide is usually assessed in the contextof an individual's criminal prosecution, assessments of stateresponsibility for genocide are even rarer. Yet two such analyseshave recently been completed: the International Commission ofInquiry on Darfur's Report and the International Court of Justice'sJudgment on genocide in Bosnia. On a key issue, the methodologyfor determining whether a state is responsible for genocide,they diverged. Whereas the Darfur Commission determined whetherthe ‘central government’ of Sudan pursued a statepolicy or plan for genocide in Darfur, the ICJ stressed thata state commits genocide through the acts of its officials,holding that if a state organ or a person or group whose actsare legally attributable to the state, engages in genocide,then the international responsibility of that state is incurred.This article critically examines the different methodologicalapproaches taken by these two bodies in light of internationaljurisprudence. It argues that the Darfur Commission erred infocusing its genocide inquiry on whether high-level officialsin Sudan's government possessed genocidal intent, rather thanon the perpetrators of the underlying criminal acts. In addition,it argues that, whether the Commission's goal was to determinestate responsibility or individual criminal responsibility,its approach was at variance with international law as elucidatedin the UN ad hoc tribunals and as subsequently confirmed bythe ICJ in the Genocide Case. In that regard, the ICJ Judgmentreestablishes two sound methodological principles: the existenceof a state plan or policy, although probative of intent, isnot an implicit element of genocide; and determining state intent(however that may be defined) is not a part of determining stateresponsibility for genocide.     

得知权理念及其在我国的初步实践

基于对 2 0世纪后半期以来 ,逐步形成的信息情报公开法制化的世界潮流及中国在近年开始推行政务公开政策 ,实施政府上网工程的实证考察 ,本文将中国法学界通常讨论的知情权问题重新表述为更具有人民主权意义的得知权理念 ,并将其论述为公民在知识经济与信息网络时代的第一位基本权利与首要人权 ,论述了得知权在世界范围内的普及与曲折的法制化进程 ,并就得知权在中国的初步实践及走向法制化途径问题作了积极探讨     

区域性人权保护制度对全球性国际人权保护的启示

尽管目前已存在为数不少的国际人权公约,国际社会成员也越来越多地加入这些公约,但全球范围内国际人权保护的效果并不明显。相比而言,区域性人权保护制度更具可行性。区域性人权保护制度在人权保护中取得了显著成绩,对全球性国际人权保护有重大启迪作用。     

Criminology and victimology of rape in context with war-like conflicts using the example of the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda

The topic of this article is sexual violence in context with war-like conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The fundamental categories of sexual violence in war-like conflicts are described. The authors discuss the types of sexual violence as defined in the report of the UN Commission of Experts on the war-like conflicts in the former Yugoslavia. Four criminal trials were evaluated: three held before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague/Netherlands and one before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) in Arusha/Tansania. The defendants were found guilty of torture, crime against humanity and genocide. Potential procedures with respect to similar crimes in current or prospective conflicts are discussed. An alternative may be the assignment of medical personnel (for example of the German Federal Armed Forces). Finally, the post-war cooperation between the Institute of Legal Medicine at the University Medical Centre of Hamburg-Eppendorf as well as the medical and government institutions in Rwanda is presented, which has been going on since 2005.     

Crime and punishment in Rwanda

In 1994 Rwanda was devastated by genocide that killed hundreds of thousands of people and destroyed the country’s infrastructure. The credibility of the criminal justice system was questioned following the genocide because it had failed to stop the slaughter and may have contributed to it. In order to address these concerns, Rwanda rebuilt its criminal justice system in light of its history and troubled past. The success of the reestablishment may be debated but there can be no question that Rwanda had a tabula rasa with which to form an effective criminal justice system. Examining the law details the ideals of the criminal justice system as established post-genocide. These ideals exemplify the democratic process. Examining current events allows for a practical assessment of the success of the new system. In both theory and practice the country’s criminal justice system has changed drastically since 1994.     

Overview of Language Rights in the International Criminal Law Sentencing Models

This paper examines the ‘deep-end’ of the international justice process—the incarceration of persons convicted in specially constituted international criminal tribunals and courts for gross violations of human rights, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes with a focus on language rights of such prisoners who are commonly serving sentences in foreign prisons. The punishment phase of the international justice process and its effects are not easily quantifiable and have been largely hidden from view. Although international criminal law asserts that equal treatment before the law requires that there be no significant disparity in punishment regimes from one sentence-enforcing country to another, comparative penology shows that there are considerable differences in the conditions of confinement and the nature of correctional services in the prison systems of different countries. This has a direct impact on post-sentence procedural and rehabilitation rights of which language rights from a key part. In this specific context, and drawing from existing literature, the paper therefore examines the extent to which enforcement practice conforms to the ideal of equal treatment espoused by the tribunals.     

论冷战后联合国人权保障机制

冷战后,国际人权保护成为国际社会广泛而深刻的议题,人权争议变得更加激烈,联合国人权保护作用和国际人权干预能力遭到质疑。联合国人权保障机制面临着诸多难题,其原因主要是体制的非平衡性、天然的妥协性、价值的工具化倾向。