Document Type
Article
Publication Title
ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law
Publication Date
2018
Volume
24:2
First Page
417
Abstract
(Excerpt)
Those involved in peace negotiations often face the dilemma of balancing demands for justice with the imperative of stopping the conflict as quickly as possible. There are abiding ethical and moral debates surrounding this tension between peace and justice. In Syria—where the death toll has exceeded 470,000, 11 million have been displaced, and there are over 14,000 documented cases of death by torture—the peace versus justice puzzle is a living dilemma with which those involved in the peace process grapple with on a daily basis.
Is it morally permissible to allow conflict (and the attendant human suffering) to continue, so as to advance the possibility of achieving justice in the form of accountability against the perpetrators of the violence? Alternatively, if justice is set aside to achieve peace more rapidly, and accountability is delayed or even prevented, is the resulting harm (including a possible return to conflict) acceptable? The debate between peace and justice lives in delegation meetings, offices of legal advisors, foreign ministries, and state governments. In the midst of a crisis, negotiators and those who advise them often must confront the tradeoff between peace and justice. Indeed, the questions being debated in the Syrian peace process reflect this lingering puzzle that negotiators have grappled with for decades. Individuals must determine their priorities in this regard and create a pragmatic strategy towards achieving that outcome. It is important to understand the primary tenants of the peace versus justice puzzle in order for those involved in a particular peace process to best solve this puzzle.
Included in
Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Commons, Human Rights Law Commons, Military, War, and Peace Commons
Comments
Available at: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/ilsajournal/vol24/iss2/7/