Should states be held responsible and punished for violations of international law? The recent ruling by the International Court of Justice that Serbia cannot be held responsible for genocide in Bosnia reflects the predominant international legal position. But, such a position leaves open the possibility that states or non-state agents can never be held responsible for international crimes. This article argues that they can and should be. While most international ethicists and legal theorists reject the punishment of corporate entities such as states, this article argues that certain types of international violations can only be undertaken by states, and, as a result, states must be bear the responsibility for them. Drawing on some neglected strands in international law and political theory, the article sketches a potential institutional framework for the punishment of state crimes, particularly genocide and aggression.
To read or purchase the full text of this article, click here.
More in this issue
Summer 2007 (21.2) • Review
Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny by Amartya Sen and Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers by Kwame Anthony Appiah
These two books are the inaugural releases in Norton's Issues of Our Time series, but they are linked by much more than this fact. Each ...
Summer 2007 (21.2) • Feature
The Inconveniences of Transnational Democracy
Suprastate policy formation in such bodies as the WTO remains fundamentally exclusive of individuals within states. This article critiques the "don't kill the goose" arguments ...
![](https://cdn.carnegiecouncil.org/media/eia/_900x525_crop_center-center_none_ns/Law_Pollitics_Morality.jpg?v=1721239402)
Summer 2007 (21.2) • Review
Law, Politics, and Morality in Judaism edited by Michael Walzer
This volume of collected essays by Michael Walzer seeks to bring a more concentrated focus on specifically Jewish outlooks regarding three key themes: "Political Order ...