news
- Book Release (2009)
Building a Future on Peace and Justice
Kai Ambos; Judith Large; Marieke Wierda, (Eds.)
Studies on Transitional Justice, Peace and Development
The Nuremberg Declaration on Peace and Justice
Online and hardcover version available
- Press Release
June 20, 2008:
Press Statement: Nuremberg Declaration on Peace and Justice (pdf; 10 KB)
- Press Release
June 27, 2007:
Press Statement at the conclusion of the Conference (pdf; 60 KB)
- Press Release
June 25, 2007:
Federal Minister Steinmeier opens Peace Conference in Nuremberg: "Peace and reconciliation cannot be achieved by thinking in black and white" (pdf; 10 KB)
Parallel workshops
Tuesday, 26 June 2007, 09.30 - 13.00 h
Workshop 4:
The Legal Framework
Panel:
Chair: Prof. Christian Tomuschat, Humboldt University Berlin
Experts:
1. Kai Ambos, Georg-August-University Göttingen
2. Diane Amann / University of California
3. David Nsereko, University of Botswana
4. Louise Mallinder / Queen's University Belfast
English
Interpreting service into German
Workshop abstract:
Rebuilding a country after it has gone through a process of self-destruction is one of the most challenging tasks a society can ever face. Although in such instances the factual background is invariably very specific, national and international law have evolved a number of mechanisms which can be relied upon in facilitating the transition process towards democracy, the rule of law and human rights. It stands to reason that a careful choice of these tools is necessary in order not to re-ignite again the conflict that was just ended. On the one hand, the victims generally demand justice; on the other hand, peace and stability are also a value that must be taken into account. Balancing these requirements never yields ideal solutions. But leaving the past untouched is the worst of all conceivable solutions.
The right to truth can be a general guideline that suits any situation of post-conflict consolidation. Peoples and individuals have a right to know what went wrong in their countries and which deficiencies led to the disaster which hit them. To avoid shedding light on the past favours the former power holders who bear the main responsibility for fatalities that occurred and the crimes that were committed. A nation that avoids looking back into its unfortunate past is threatened with repeating the errors that led it into its calamity. In this sense, truth commissions, which emerged first in Latin America and are now envisaged after any major internal conflict, have proved their usefulness as an instrument of restoration of faith and of reconciliation.
Complete reparation in favour of the victims seems to be a self-evident requirement. But effective reparation in terms of monetary compensation will more often than not prove impossible because of the scarcity of the available resources. After a national disaster, societies normally have to struggle hard to rebuild their economies; even fairly wealthy societies like Germany have experienced difficulties in granting satisfying compensation. But moral reparation should never be denied to the victims. Many forms of such moral reparation have been devised in practice. Those who died under authoritarian terror should never be forgotten.
Under normal circumstances, any person committing a crime will be put on trial. The atrocities committed by criminal regimes also call for sanctions under the rule of law. After having regained their freedom from a repressive regime, however, societies have to acknowledge that large sectors of the population bear some of the historic responsibility. Accordingly, a clear-cut distinction between law-abiding citizens and criminal elements is hard to draw. For this reason, there is on the one hand a certain tendency to grant generous and far-reaching amnesties while from a legal viewpoint such amnesties are generally rejected regarding core crimes under international law. In particular, self-amnesties reflect generally an abuse of governmental powers. Whatever the outcome of this debate, the major criminals, under whose orders kidnappings and extra-judicial-killings took place, should never be able to escape their responsibility.
Since national judicial systems are generally unable to cope with the consequences of internal political conflict, many hopes have been placed in the International Criminal Court (ICC), established under the Rome Statute and located in The Hague. Unfortunately, the ICC has never received a full endorsement from the international community in its entirety. In particular, three of the five permanent members of the Security Council, China, Russia and the U.S.A., have refrained from accepting the Rome Statute. This abstentionism has considerable weakened the ICC. To date, it has not rendered a single judgment but it is actively processing several situations. The international community as a whole has a vivid interest in ensuring the effectiveness of the ICC.
The objective of the workshop is to make recommendations for legal parameters regarding the different legal issues as they are mentioned in this short outline, notwithstanding the fact that each and every case must be examined on its specific merits.
Workshop responsible:
Institute for Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Department for Foreign and International Criminal Law, University Goettingen