Page 1 of 47

445

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol.7, No.7

Publication Date: July 25, 2020

DOI:10.14738/assrj.77.8636.

Pathak, B. (2020). Critiques on the Tribunals and The Hague Court. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 7(7) 445-491.

Critiques on the Tribunals and The Hague Court

Bishnu Pathak

Ph.D., Conflict Transformation and Human Rights

ABSTRACT

This critique is a review of heinous crimes. It assesses to connect with

perpetrators, victims, people and institutions and change professed

through the works of the Tribunals and The Hague Court and share the

feeling with the concerned ones. The objectives of the paper are three- fold: (1) to study the situations of the investigation, prosecution and

punishment on accountability; (2) to analyze the preference for justice:

victors’ justice or victims’ justice; and (3) to access the critiques on

violations of human rights and humanitarian law beyond the borders.

Experiences on Transitional Justice, Human Security, and Human Rights

among others feel touched, inspired and motivated to the author for this

pioneer paper. This state-of-the-art paper is examined based on

archival research, exchanging and sharing way forward with over 100

international publications and lessons-learned centric theoretical

approach comprising snow-ball techniques. The study theorizes: (1)

Retributive Justice Theory: Punishment is justified as perpetrator

deserves for penalty, equivalent vengeance; (2) Utilitarian Justice

Theory: Punishment is justified to mid-and-junior level perpetrators

scooting-free to the top-most policymakers including Emperor Hirohito.

Allied powers believed that Hirohito can only fight against the

communism; (3) Denunciation Justice Theory: Punishment is justified

by pressure of society that sends a clear message: offence is a heinous

crime and sentencing a perpetrator is logically just; (4) Restorative

Justice Theory: Punishment is justified as crimes of perpetrators hurt

everyone and justice repairs the damage satisfying through

accountability, reparation, rehabilitation and reconciliation; and (5)

Transnational Justice Theory: Punishment is justified to operate outside

a nation territory that penalizes the perpetrators as a crime of

international concern. The Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals had

virtually been victor’s justice with self-righteous fraud and lynching

bodies. The Tokyo Tribunal never talks about bombings at Chinese

cities. The U.S. and its axis powers discourage future aggressions

accepting victor’s justice. The UN failed to restore peace and security.

Cronyism was/is widespread. All Tribunals seemed pseudo justice

bodies. People criticize these for being one-sided, inefficient,

ineffectiveness, politicized, lengthy, very costly and unfair bodies. The

U.S. and its satellite nations control both Tribunals and The Hague Court

providing funds, instruments and staff. The Hague Court is a highly

debated body with many flaws, targeting mostly poor and opponent

African countries. Most grave crimes committed go unpunished. Thus,

justice delivery appears as a sword in a judge's toupee. If The Hague

Court is continuously influenced by powerful non-signatories of Statute,

Page 3 of 47

447

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol.7, Issue 7, July-2020

The temporary Tribunals had been sources of inspiration to establish the permanent court called

the International Criminal Court (ICC) at The Hague Court which is simply called The Hague Court

in this study. The Rome Statute defines the structure and areas of jurisdiction of The Hague Court.

Therefore, the ICC is the Court of the Statute. The ICC prosecutes individuals either from the State

Party or non-State Party on four kinds of heinous international crimes of concerns. The main

objectives of The Hague Court are to find out the worst perpetrators held accountable for these

crimes; to investigate, prosecute and punish the perpetrators of genocide, crimes against humanity

and war crimes; to assist national judiciaries in the investigation and prosecution of perpetrators;

and to help promote peace and security by deterring potential perpetrator.

This paper aims to thoroughly study the works of the Tribunals and The Hague Court investigating

the axiomatic truth of human wrongdoings which occurred between and among the State to State,

State to non-State and non-State to non-State after the World War II till date. It analyzes a set of

judicial measures of systematic human rights violations and/or abuses of International

Humanitarian Law (IHL) and reviews them critically.

The General Objective of the paper is to investigate the truth of offences of war crimes, crimes

against humanity and genocide by critically examining the specific contribution made by the

Tribunals and The Hague Court and their critical perceptions argued by victims, commoners,

leaders, eyewitnesses or survivors, perpetrators and academia inland and beyond.

The Specific Objectives are to examine the situations of investigation, prosecution and punishment

for the perpetrators’ decisions taken by the Tribunals and The Hague Court; to evaluate the work

records of the Tribunals and The Hague Court in Theoretical frameworks; to analyze the preference

of justices: victors’ justice or victims’ justice initiated and adopted by the Tribunals and The Hague

Court; and to access the critiques of Tribunals and The Hague Court assessing the influence on

violations or abuses of international human rights and humanitarian law beyond borders by

internal and external forces to the State Party and non-State Party of the Rome Statute during Cold- War and Post-Cold-War era.

The author of this paper prefers to use a soft word "Critique", but the concerned individuals,

institutions and States of the victims use the vague word “Criticism” in the present day world.

Critique is a detailed analysis and assessment of something. Critique is a serious examination and

judgment (https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/critique). Critique connotes to review

something critically. Author observes, “A critique is a careful analysis of an argument to determine

what is said, how well the points are made, what assumptions underlie the argument, what issues

are overlooked and what implications are drawn from such observations. It is a systematic, yet

personal response and evaluation of what you read”

(https://www.hws.edu/academics/ctl/pdf/critique.pdf).

Critiques of Justice Bodies are examined on the basis of author’s three-decade long studies,

researching, observations and teachings on international human rights-humanitarian law and

conflict management-transformation, human security studies and transitional justice among others.

The author gained experiences working with human wrongdoings; human insecurities, armed

conflict and heinous crimes committed and analyzed their cause (of conflict) and effect (victor’s or

victim’s justice) relationships. The author's reflections are gained either through literature review