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
Globalizing Democracy and Human Rights by Carol C. Gould
Although the focus of "Globalizing Democracy and Human Rights" is practical, Gould does not shy away from hard theoretical questions, such as the relentless debate ...
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 ...
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 ...