Winter 2011 (25.4) Feature

Excesses of Responsibility: The Limits of Law and the Possibilities of Politics

Since 1945 responsibility for atrocity has been individualized, and international tribunals and courts have been given effective jurisdiction over it. This article argues that the move to individual responsibility leaves significant "excesses" of responsibility for war crimes unaccounted for. When courts do attempt to recognize the collective nature of war crime perpetration, through the doctrines of "command responsibility," "joint criminal enterprise" and "state responsibility," the application of these doctrines has, it is argued, limited or perverse effects. The article suggests that instead of expecting courts to allocate excesses of responsibility, other accountability mechanisms should be used alongside trials to allocate political (rather than legal) responsibility for atrocity. The mechanisms favored here are "Responsibility and Truth Commissions," i.e., well-resourced non-judicial commissions which are mandated to hold to account individual and collective actors rather than simply to provide an account of past violence.

To read or purchase the full text of this article, click here.

More in this issue

Winter 2011 (25.4) Review Essay

The Unity and Objectivity of Value

In honor of Ronald Dworkin, one of the most influential and original philosophers and legal theorists of his generation, EIA is republishing a review essay ...

Winter 2011 (25.4) Review

Global Governance and the UN: An Unfinished Journey by Thomas G. Weiss and Ramesh Thakur

This book identifies "gaps" in world order and the ways that the UN has evolved to manage those gaps, albeit in a somewhat ad hoc ...

Winter 2011 (25.4) Review

The Honor Code by Kwame Anthony Appiah

Far from being obsolete, Kwame Appiah argues, honor is alive and well today--and that is a very good thing. Honor persists because it reflects timeless ...