Breakfast: Peace Versus Justice

Tuesday, October 11, 2011, 9.00–9.45, Žofín Palace, Restaurant

Introduction:

Oldřich Černý, Executive Director, Forum 2000 Foundation, Czech Republic

Remarks:

Gareth Evans, Former Minster of Foreign Affairs, Chancellor, Australian National University, Australia

 

 

The central theme of the remark was how both peace and justice are wanted equally in the rule of law, but that both often clash. Gareth Evans began the remark by discussing changes in international law, noting that there are now many more options for ending conflict and punishing human rights violators in international criminal law. The most important development towards this was the establishment of treaties, especially the Rome Treaty, creating brand new jurisdiction in the criminal court.

 

In resolving the issue of justice and peace, it was noted that justice cannot be traded away in order to achieve peace. In simple cases, prosecution is the way to peace. In the more complex cases this is harder to prove. Peace is achieved by ending misery, but there is a clash. “The policy dilemma does exist. We cannot just fight for peace, and address the rest later; both sides have to be taken into consideration.” Trading away justice in the hope of peace, he argued, never works. It only leads to a prolonged dramatic escalation, leaving the case unresolved.

 

Lastly he pointed out seven points needed to resolve the issue; retribution, incapacitation, rehabilitations (giving hope to defenders), objective justice (truth telling), notion of de-legitimization, institutionalizations of human rights norms, and deterrence (the power of example). All these benefits, he concluded, are significant for the long-term resolution. It is impossible to offer an infinite answer to the question, as there is too much conflict between justice and peace. The only way to get around it, he argued, is by treating justice as the default position. In the end, “We all want the same thing: we want both. Peace and justice.”