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) • Internal
Editors' Note [Full Text]
Sometimes change is revolutionary, but more often it tends to be evolutionary. That is why many readers might not even notice that there are a ...
Summer 2007 (21.2) • Feature
Liability and Just Cause
This paper is a response to Jeff McMahan's "Just Cause for War" (EIA, 19.3, 2005). It defends a more permissive, and more traditional view of just war ...
Summer 2007 (21.2) • Review
A Turn to Empire: The Rise of Imperial Liberalism in Britain and France by Jennifer Pitts
Jennifer Pitts asserts that imperialism was not essential to the liberal project, as is so often alleged by its critics, most recently and systematically by ...