Welcome to this last video of our course. In our journey, we've tried to take you inside the world of criminal court and tribunals. We've explored key cases and trials such as the ICC's first case, the Lubanga case. We've seen that justice in the Hague provides important impulses for accountability, but international criminal justice goes well beyond the Hague. It is part of a broader concept of accountability that encompasses justice, truths, effective remedies and guarantees of non-repetition. We've covered four key aspects of international criminal justice. International crimes and theories of liability, justice institutions and procedures, the role of different actors at a trial, and remedies. In this final video, I would like to reflect on some of the main findings. I would like to conclude with a SWOT analysis of international criminal justice. SWOT is a concept bought from economic analysis and stands for, strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Let us start with strengths. We've seen that international criminal justice is a very powerful idea. It has a dual function. It serves as a sword and as a shield in relation to violations. It applies to state actors and non-state actors. It covers political elites, organized armed groups or external drivers of conflict. It has a strong impact on international relations. For instance, the fact that acting of former heads of state such as President Kenyatta, Charles Taylor or Pinochet need to defer to the authority of judges sends a powerful message that there's a certain equality before the law. International law provides a wide choice of legal instruments and concepts to investigate and prosecute mass atrocity crime. The judgements of international criminal courts and tribunals have adjusted all categories of crimes such as genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity to contemporary conflicts or modern forms of violence, such as modern day slavery, sexual violence against woman and man, attacks on peacekeepers, cultural property or use of child soldiers. Today, many of these crimes have a foundation in customary law or trigger a duty to investigate and prosecute. This means that they can be prosecuted by specialized international courts and tribunals or by domestic jurisdictions. Modern instruments provide the means to investigate and prosecute highest leaders, medium and low level perpetrators, as well as bystanders. Doctrines such as joint criminal enterprise, control over the crime, control over hierarchical structures of power, or superior responsibility help to hold defendants accountable as perpetrators rather than mere accessories to the crimes of others. In this way, they take into account the collective dimensions of international crimes. We've further seen that the justice process itself is moving towards a broader vision of justice. It is not only focused on punishment and retribution but contains certain restorative elements. At the same time, there are certain weaknesses. International criminal justice typically comes in ex post, that is, after the offenses have been committed. It struggles to target the emergence of criminal plans or policies that serve as explanation or justification of collective crimes. It remains highly selective. Non-human related interests such as the protection of the environment are only indirectly protected. As the ICC engagement in Africa has shown, claims of victor's justice and post-colonial critiques never fully went away. Even-handed prosecution remains a challenge in almost any situation. There are perceptions of double standards in relation to the conduct of big powers or the responsibility of government forces in civil war. Gravity considerations or sequencing of investigation or prosecution alone do not solve dilemmas relating to the choice of situations and cases. Targeting inequalities or biases requires a more careful examination of the links between justice and politics and the unintended consequences of action and inaction. Second, we've seen that atrocity crimes are extraordinary but that the modalities of determining guilt or innocence and sentencing are relatively ordinary. There's a certain inequality between the prosecution and the defense. Witnesses remain a fragile source of evidence. New attention needs to be devoted to the opportunities of new technologies. The rationales of punishment are often unclear, and sentences incoherent. There's no system of juvenile justice for international crimes. Moreover, there's a certain discrepancy between expectation and result. International criminal justice is built on the face of civil society and victims but moving victims from the periphery to the center creates difficulties. Victim participation and reparation may easily increase victim fatigue. Struggles between individuals over identity and group affiliations, and certain feelings of exclusion. We have further seen that some tensions may be positive rather than negative. They present opportunities. Let me provide three examples. The first one relates to the relationship between the nullum crimen sine lege principle and the managerial powers of judges. This tension has allowed certain useful developments of the law. For instance, many of the crime definitions contained in the ICC statute would not exist without the jurisprudence of the ad hoc tribunals. The second example is the relationship between international criminal law and transitional justice. We've seen that international criminal courts and tribunals should not be confused with transitional justice institutions. They have a more narrower function due to their focus on criminal accountability. But they may make a positive contribution to transitional justice goals such as justice, truth finding, effective remedies or guarantees of non-repetition. 'Grey zones' in the law provide flexibility for context specific solutions. Third, there are positive synergies between international criminal justice and transnational organized crime. Both fields share common purpose, to identify those who organize and lead networks of criminality. These links need to be explored more fully. For instance, investigating organized crime structures and financial transactions may facilitate the proof of contextual elements of core crimes or links between defendants and the crimes. The ICC plan to highlight this connection in a case targeting illicit financing of conflict in the DRC. Finally, we've seen that there are certain threats to international criminal justice. One threat is the risk of the instrumentalization of international justice. In past years, several governments and the security council have used the ICC as a drop box for cases without assuming responsibility in relation to criminal justice enforcement. This is an ambivalent strategy. International criminal justice should not serve as a tool to get rid of political enemies or to outsource responsibility simply because the ICC is a more convenient forum. It must go hand-in-hand with the assumption of responsibility by the referring entity. Second, there are resource constraints. The budget of international criminal courts and tribunals is relatively modest in relation to military budgets. Budgetary constraints limit the number of iterations, cases and trials that international criminal courts and tribunals can take on. More resources must be invested to give a meaningful role to the trust fund for victims. Finally, the turn to global justice should not become an instrument to stifle regional or local justice responses including truth commissions, public inquiries, community service or traditional re-integrate of practices after conflict. International criminal justice also needs to become more weary of stereotypes that it creates through images, such as those of the innocent victim, the evil perpetrator or the powerless woman. With this, we reach the end of this course. As we have seen, international criminal justice is neither at the beginning of its end as predicted by some, nor at the end of its beginning. The story continues to be written. We hope that you become part of this journey and that you will continue to follow developments in the field or even go a step deeper in particular areas. We have covered a broad range of issues ranging from major categories of crimes and the role of different actors and institutions and the legal process to the general justification of international criminal justice. The assignments are meant to test your knowledge and to make you argue and to apply the law. The next step is to experience international law in action. There are many opportunities to become involved. We invite you to visit the Hague and Leiden for one of our summer schools or to apply to one of our international law masters programs at the Leiden law school. If you are a student you may take part in the ICC Moot Court competition organized by the Grotius Center and other international partners in cooperation with the ICC. If you have graduated already or you have practical experience, you might be interested in some of the internship and visiting professional opportunities at international criminal courts and tribunals. Thank you once again for watching. We look forward to seeing you soon at the Hague or at another Leiden University course.
