Conclusion

AuthorOlympia Bekou
Pages74-80
Policy Department , Directorate-General for External Policies
74
is conceptualised as having a global reach or whether it is envisaged as applying only to Iraq and Syria. An
ad hoc tribunal envisaged to try IS crimes only in the region is potentially exposed to criticisms of victors’
justice in the context of Iraq, and is overly specific given the multiplicity of actors in Syria (Interviews Minks,
12, 13; Dworkin). Potentially the mechanism could be a starting point, but it should not be the end as there
will not be accountability if focus is only on one group amid other actors in a context (Interview Minks).
European officials have also suggested that its mandate could be widened in future, although such
expansion is itself problematic (Dworkin). The message which such a mechanism would send, and any
potential impacts on future conflicts and conflict-affected populations must be considered if justice is
applied selectively (Interview 12). Alternatively, given IS activity in Sri Lanka, Niger and elsewhere an ad hoc
tribunal could be given subject-specific jurisdiction over IS crimes, with a global reach. Functioning in
complementarity, with the cooperation of States, as a forum into which States could refer cases and th us
overcoming the issue of selectivity within one context (Interview 10).
At this time, opportunities for justice for survivors of crimes committed in Syria by former members of IS
remain limited (Interview Marchi-Uhel). An international mechanism with a legal framework which
encompasses core international crimes may better expose the range of acts which have been committed
than prosecutions based on broad charges such as membership of a terrorist organisation (Interviews 10,
12). Academics have highlighted the scope to address issu es such as the destruction of artefacts and sites
of cultural heritage perpetrated by the IS in Iraq and Syria since 2014 (Hill). Arguably, the EU should
incorporate inclusive consultative processes with victim communities in order to centralise the opinions of
affected populations, seeking opinions from communities within Syria and Iraq as well as the diasporas
within EU Member States (Interviews 12, 13). Without the input of victim and survivor communities it is
possible that advocacy which focuses on calls for international criminal prosecutions, but which is
disconnected from transitional processes results in a mechanism to prosecute IS crimes which may not
resonate with local populations (Interview 13). It therefore may not make a sustainable impact for
accountability. There may be more holistic solutions available which link to sustainable and broader
transitional justice efforts.
Each of the options faces challenges, not least the involved costs, which must arguably be viewed in the
long term given the risks and associated security costs generated by the IS. In relation to foreign fighters
the cost of establishing a new mechanism potentially far outw eighs the costs of providing financial and
resource support to domestic jurisdictions in order for them to repatriate and process their nationals
(Interview 2). Similarly, should a political decision to go ahead occur, a new mechanism could take
significant time to establish, whereas there are national jurisdictions which already have legislative
frameworks and which, with enhanced resources and support, could take the cases (Interview 2). However,
there may be gaps which domestic jurisdictions are unable to meet and thus an international mechanism
into which individuals can be referred may become necessary (Interview 10). Answering questions around
whether the mechanism should investigate and prosecute all terrorist groups, all parties to a situation, all
crimes of concern and the scope of its territorial jurisdiction will have implications for the cooperation,
location and funding of the mechanism, as well as its accountability to the affected populations and its
legacy (Dworkin).
5. Conclusion
Providing an examination of judicial and non-judicial accountability mechanisms has revealed the
importance of cooperation between States, between States and accountability mechanisms and between
the different accountability mechanisms. It is clear that the different models of accountability mechanisms
employed for core international crimes work to complement each other. Ad hoc tribunals address core
international crimes at the international level upholding fundamental human rights, especially fair trial
norms and victim and witness protection. But these institutions have a narrow and specific temporal and

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT