DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: PEACE, RECONCILIATION, AND JUSTICE

1. In your opinion, what should justice in a "post-conflict" situation entail? Ideally, what goals need to be met in order to promote justice?

2. In the aftermath of war crimes, genocide, or widespread human rights abuses, which goals should take precedence: peace, stability, punishment of the perpetrators, or reconciliation? Is it possible to pursue all of these goals simultaneously? Why or why not?

3. For many of us, it is understandable why victims of atrocities might be motivated by vengeance to pursue retribution against the perpetrators of these atrocities. How might the international community best promote post-conflict justice in order to minimize victims' incentives to pursue retribution and renewed cycles of violence?

4. Two of the most successful post-conflict transitions are the cases of Germany and Japan after World War II which involved military occupation after the defeat of these powers in the war. However, this model may not be appropriate for most post-conflict situations because of the norm of non-intervention in world politics. (According to the UN Charter, it is unlawful for one nation-state to intervene in the internal affairs of another sovereign state.) Given the constraints imposed by this norm, how aggressive a role should the international community play in promoting peacebuilding and post-conflict justice? Is it sometimes appropriate for the international community to violate the letter of international law by intervening to promote the spirit of human rights, also a norm enshrined in the UN Charter, as arguably happened when NATO intervened to prevent "ethnic cleansing" in Kosovo without UN approval? If so, when are such actions appropriate? If not, why not?