Content uploaded by John D. Ciorciari
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by John D. Ciorciari on Jan 05, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Hybrid Justice: The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia
Abstract
Since 2006, the United Nations and Cambodian Government have participated in the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, a hybrid tribunal created to try key Khmer Rouge officials for crimes of the Pol Pot era. In Hybrid Justice, John D. Ciorciari and Anne Heindel examine the contentious politics behind the tribunal’s creation, its flawed legal and institutional design, and the frequent politicized impasses that have undermined its ability to deliver credible and efficient justice and leave a positive legacy. They also draw lessons and principles for future hybrid and international courts and proceedings.
... It is one of the crime sites in the ECCC Cases 003, 004 and 004/01-cases subject to obstacles and blatant interference by the RGC. 83 The charged person in Case 004/01 was Ms. Im Chaem, who in her role during the regime assigned workers to the Trapeang Thma dam. On 22 February 2017, the Co-Investigating Judges issued a joint closing order in the proceedings against Im Chaem. ...
The article addresses the relationship between the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) and the supposed constituents of that transitional justice institution. The article sets out to offer a sociological methodology that TJ mechanism could contemplate in the process of enabling victims/witnesses to narrate justice and transition in their own terms and using Cambodia as a case study. It offers a theoretical and methodological approach to be reflected upon by transitional justice scholars and practitioners, which may enable a more victim-centered attitude in practical interactions with atrocity survivors (not a cure-all policy solution). My own research has actively used this methodology to serve this task. This article draws on 70 in-depth oral histories taken from regime survivors, former Khmer Rouge, religious leaders, international and domestic jurists at the ECCC ,witnesses, civil parties, historical and cultural figures from multiple communities in 10 provinces in Cambodia. I have established some basis for situating individual voices into a specifically Cambodian intellectual context. In discussing the Cambodian case from the position of those outside the ECCC (but whom that institution serves) the article engages with the normative assumptions of transitional justice praxis and broader thematic problems such as bridging local and global conceptions of justice.
... The absence of judges, prosecutors, clerks, and bailiffs seriously hampered the judiciary's effective operation. The inadequate physical infrastructure of many courts also causes delays in the administration of justice and jail overcrowding [7]. ...
This study uses documentary research methods to thoroughly examine how the Cambodian court has changed over time, the problems it faces now, and the possible solutions that have been suggested. The study tells the story of Cambodia's court system from colonization to today, focusing on important events and ongoing problems. It uses rules, laws, old records, government reports, and survey numbers. According to structured research, the piece gives information about things that have been done, like setting up courts nationwide and settling criminal cases. The piece also discusses problems like insufficient people to work as judges, inadequate infrastructure, and no rules governing specific judicial jobs. This part of the research approach explains the video analysis strategy used in this study. This makes the research process more open and rigorous.
... But they also face vexing problems, as the disappointing results from the first wave of hybrid tribunals show (McAuliffe 2011). Historically, hybrid approaches have faced a greater risk of domestic political capture, and they have often served the ends of the state more than the victims (Ciorciari and Heindel 2014). International support for local mechanisms appears more promising when it enjoys regime support, but challenges still exist. ...
After violent conflicts, international actors face difficult choices about whether and how to provide assistance. These decisions can have immense consequences. As aid always occurs under conditions of scarcity, theoretical reflection is crucial to reveal the opportunity costs and potential tensions between alternative courses of action. Yet there has been relatively little scholarly reflection on what should constitute priorities for post-conflict assistance and why. This paper advances this debate by comparing two very different areas of assistance that both embody compelling values and goals: public health and transitional justice. It argues that aid for public health deserves greater attention based on powerful normative considerations and its impressive empirical record. It also suggests the need to examine not only clearly underperforming areas, but also tough cases. Transitional justice, despite its strong normative foundations, faces challenges and limitations that justify reform and a reconsideration of the emphasis commonly placed on it. Our intention is not to suggest that long-standing commitments ought to be abandoned or that all aid should be allocated to health. Rather, by scrutinising the priorities of international assistance, we hope to start a general discussion about how the international community can best help societies heal after conflict.
The harrowing Cambodian genocide unfolded between 1975-1979 while the Khmer Rouge regime was in power. It's in human history with ramifications for international law. The trials against the perpetrators of genocide or to be precise the auto-genocide were 30 years too late. This article examines the genocide in Cambodia from the standpoint of international law. It also revolves around the exploration of the legal ramifications of the widespread crimes that resulted in the deaths of almost 1.7 million Cambodians. In doing so, it provides insights into international law in general and Cambodia's catastrophe. The article also addresses the nature of international law from the perspective of the Cambodian genocide. The Cambodian genocide has made a tremendous contribution to how the author and many like-minded persons view international law and it is the author's humble attempt to reflect on the nature of international law through the lens of the Cambodian genocide.
This book examines global accountability for war crimes and human rights violations, exploring legal frameworks, historical evolution, and strategies for justice. It analyzes international laws, conventions, and mechanisms for addressing atrocities, while delineating the scope and impact of these crimes. The text provides historical context, case studies, and an assessment of ongoing challenges in achieving accountability. Emphasizing victim-centered approaches, the book underscores the importance of justice, healing, and prevention in upholding human dignity and peace.
From 1975 to 1979, The Democratic Kampuchea, or the Khmer Rouge, killed between one and a half to two million people, or twenty percent of the population of Cambodia through starvation, torture, and other means. This period is often cited as prime example of a genocide, yet forty years have passed and only four people have been held accountable for these crimes. In 2003, after years of negotiation with the government of Hun Sen, the prime minster of Cambodia from 1985 until the present, the United Nations and the government of Cambodia decided to establish the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia for the prosecution of the people many believe responsible for the death of over a million people. Yet, from 2003 until the present, as the courts are still in operation, only four people have been prosecuted despite sixteen years and $300 million dollars from the international community.[1] Despite the Cambodian Genocide being a prime example of genocide, the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, or ECCC, has proven to be a complete failure for the millions of dead, and the many millions more who lived through the events, and continue to live with the memory every day. Historians, lawyers, and international scholars have debated the issues surrounding why the ECCC has failed to deliver the promises of justice. Over the course of this paper we will be looking at the historiographic tradition surrounding the Extraordinary Chambers in the Cambodian Courts, dividing the works into two different camps. These two camps differ in their opinion on the fatal flaw with regard to the ECCC. These two camps of thought are, one, that political interference by the authoritarian Hun Sen government has, over the courts ten plus years of existence, used its power to prevent any real progress from being made. The other camp argues that the United Nations 2003 agreement with its international standards of justice does not fit into the national ideal of justice and that hybrid courts that attempt to balance international and national priorities have been flawed since its creation. By providing a detailed analysis of these sources the goal will be to find how the two different camps make their arguments and perhaps how scholars have proposed solutions to the difficulties of the Hun Sen government and the UN to attempt to find justice in Cambodia.
This chapter focuses on the EU’s efforts to promote stabilization in the Western Balkans, particularly with regard to Kosovo. The creation of the Kosovo Specialist Chambers and Specialist Prosecutor’s Office was the direct result of diplomatic pressure exerted by the EU and US on the Kosovo Government to avoid the involvement of the Security Council in the institution of any new tribunal for war crimes in Kosovo. Under this international pressure, and with the clear intention of conducting an independent criminal investigation of events in Kosovo during the armed conflict of 1998–2000, the Kosovo Parliament passed a constitutional amendment and a Law on Specialist Chambers and the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office on 3 August 2015, thereby creating a sui generis hybrid court. The specific jurisdiction of this special tribunal situated in The Hague (Netherlands) includes crimes against humanity, war crimes, and other transnational and international crimes committed in the Kosovo territory between 1 January 1998 and 31 December 2000 in response to allegations published in the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly Report of 7 January 2011. This special Court is composed of international judges divided into Panels for each level of domestic jurisdiction. As a clear example of transitional justice, the creation of this special Court might provide a measure of justice for victims, guarantee effective accountability for the perpetrators, and help stabilize the region. Only the outcome of the Court’s activity will show whether the exigencies of justice and stability will prevail over nationalism and ethnic rivalries, strengthening the region’s stability and its natural integration in the European Union.KeywordsCriminal prosecutionEULEXKosovoSpecialist chambersStabilization
This article examines the outreach activities of the ongoing trials in the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC). The ECCC was designed to hold the leaders of Cambodia's notoriously violent Khmer Rouge regime (1975–1979) accountable. Outreach programmes have now become part of transitional justice initiatives as means to anchor their work in local and national consciousness in target countries. Using ethnographic data gathered in 2019–2020, this article explores how outreach activities have changed over time as they have become subject to new influences. I focus in particular on how some local actors have begun appropriating them in ways that represent a ‘counter-translation’ of the intentions originally propagated by the architects of the ECCC.
This paper argues that a politics of scale plays a fundamental but uninterrogated role in internationalised criminal justice processes such as hybrid tribunals. Scale discourses—producing specific notions of “the international” and “the local”—are so naturalised in these endeavours that their regressive effects remain unacknowledged. Following Annelise Riles’ ground‐breaking analysis of the politics of scale in colonial law, and feminist critiques of scale discourse in accounts of globalisation and conflict, we think critically about “the international” and “the local” in a postcolonial and post‐conflict justice context. Using the case of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC), we specifically examine the operation and effects of discourses of “international standards” and “local ownership”. We argue that denaturalising scale in international criminal justice would serve a wider project to decolonise international law and address the specific forms of disenfranchisement currently enacted by dominant “scales of justice”.
Transitional justice provides inconclusive accounts of the relationship between its many mechanisms, including trials, truth commissions, amnesty and traditional practices, and reconciliation. If the goal of justice is to bring peace and democracy, then political reconciliation should be the main focus along with the tribunal process. Using Cambodia as a case study, this paper examines the attempt to deal with the country's past atrocities and argues that whether it is in the form of tribunals or compromises, little has been contributing to building political reconciliation among the Cambodian political factions. Guided by Murphy’s theoretical framework and the auto ethnographic approach, this study reveals that the political identity with which each political group has labeled each other has undermined social and moral conditions, threatening the rule of law, political trust, and relational capabilities that are necessary for peace and democracy. This paper also uses current surveys of Cambodia’s younger generation to reveal the prioritized process along with the tribunal that the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia is processing.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.