IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/devchg/v45y2014i3p543-564.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

‘When we Walk Out, What was it all About?’: Views on New Beginnings from within the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

Author

Listed:
  • Gerhard Anders
  • Olaf Zenker
  • Nigel Eltringham

Abstract

type="main"> The 1994 United Nations Security Council resolution which created the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) foresaw it marking a ‘new beginning’, both locally (peace and reconciliation in Rwanda) and globally (strengthening the project of international criminal justice). Over time, those who spoke on behalf of the ICTR highlighted the strictly quantifiable (number of arrests, convictions) and the contributions to the global ‘new beginning’ for international criminal justice. Ethnographic fieldwork at the ICTR, however, revealed that lawyers and judges, enmeshed in the Tribunal's institutional order, held diverse views regarding local and global efficacy, refracted through the sense of power(lessness) that accompanied their respective institutional locations. Focusing on the attitude of judges and lawyers to the lack of indictments for members of the Rwandan Patriotic Army for alleged massacres in 1994 and accusations of ‘victor's justice’, this article distinguishes between the ICTR as a disembodied institution that did or did not mark local or global ‘new beginnings’, and the ICTR as a collection of situated persons negotiating their simultaneous empowerment and disempowerment.

Suggested Citation

  • Gerhard Anders & Olaf Zenker & Nigel Eltringham, 2014. "‘When we Walk Out, What was it all About?’: Views on New Beginnings from within the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 45(3), pages 543-564, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:devchg:v:45:y:2014:i:3:p:543-564
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/dech.12089
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:devchg:v:45:y:2014:i:3:p:543-564. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0012-155X .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.