The workshop consisted of three sessions which covered the following topics: responsibility to protect and national sovereignty; retributive justice as a deterrent; and developing international action.

Session one focused on the responsibility to protect, and mainly on the responsibility of the international community. The panellists agreed with the conclusions from the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), including both the responsibility to protect– ranging from states to the international community–and the criteria for military intervention when prevention fails. However, one participant raised doubts about the formal adoption of any such guidelines, referring to the UN Security Council’s record of paralysis in humanitarian crises. The explanations lay, among other things, in the uneven distribution of information in the Council and the dominance of national interests, often conceived in defensive terms.

The discussion then focused on the way forward, along three lines:

• Clarifying the principles:
Guidelines both promoting and disciplining humanitarian intervention should be built in some way into UN jurisprudence. The current work of the Secretary General’s Group of Eminent Persons would give a chance to push for this again.

• Strengthening capacities:
Emphasis should be put on regional actors’ right and responsibility to act, already stipulated in the UN charter. The need for a variety of viable frames for multinational intervention, beside NATO and US-led forces, was also stressed. Other UN institutions dealing with humanitarian issues such as UNHR and UNHCR were relevant and deserved financial and political support.

• Change in policies:
A centre for the prevention of genocide should be set up, possibly by a couple of like-minded governments, in New York. This focal point should be responsible for gathering data and information from NGOs about threats of genocide in order for it to be fed into the UN system.

The second session centred on the potential role of retributive judicial mechanisms in deterring future war crimes and genocidal acts. The effectiveness and efficiency of the current process of fighting impunity through the establishment of various models of international and domestic criminal courts was examined. The importance of the ICC was underscored and genuine enthusiasm was expressed for the new ‘hybrid courts’ in places like Sierra Leone (views differed on whether the Iraqi Special Tribunal fitted into this spectrum or not). The proposal to maximize the catalytic role of the ICC (brought up in plenary session) was reiterated. The principle of complementarity to national systems, whereby the state has the duty to prosecute in the first instance is embedded in the Rome Statute. The prosecution of war crimes at the domestic level was highlighted, therefore the need for the latter to be supported by technical know-how, financial resources, and careful monitoring of performance by the international community was stressed–not least because they provide the longer-term solution.

A key point raised was the importance of successful outreach programs for any judicial entity to ensure that the tasks and objectives of the court are made transparent and accessible to the affected population. This will enhance their sense of ownership and the reckoning of their collective past. Sensitivities to local circumstances will also help ensure that retributive justice is matched to the actual expectations and needs of the victims in each case.

The nexus between justice and peace was a reverberating theme of the session. Although the norm of retributive justice may not in itself posses a strong preventive function, the indictments of top leaders do bring immediate benefits to move peace processes forward, as illustrated by the experience in the Balkans.

The panellists also recognized that comprehensive justice goes beyond sentencing individuals at the highest level. Therefore, it is essential that a multidimensional approach be taken–other forms of delivering justice such as truth and reconciliation commissions should be made available to complement the formal process. It was further agreed that there was a need to strengthen the link between retributive and restorative justice.

The third session addressed the essential role of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in promoting and protecting the cause of human rights in an environment marked by continuing or past atrocity crimes. The panellists stressed the importance of international NGO presence in conflict-ridden societies, which may offer the only way to give warning of existing and potential threats of violent conflicts in countries where local NGO growth has been repressed. To increase the effectiveness of NGOs’ preventive actions, the following recommendations emerged: international NGOs should coordinate their resources to map and monitor conflict development, prioritising the recommendations that they seek to translate into policy; they must use collaborative strategies for advocacy and, at the same time, regularly share information and analysis with governments, international organisations and the media. The more influential international NGOs also have to build the capacity of local NGOs. More intense cross-sectional collaboration between humanitarian and human rights NGOs with other types of NGOs, e.g. those involved in human security and environmental issues, was seen as necessary.

Another aspect that was central to the session’s debates was the matter of NGO support for issues of transitional justice, specifically for those revolving around the International Criminal Court. This was seen as particularly salient in a climate where various players, some very powerful, were actively hostile to the configuration of a functioning system of international justice. At a national level, it was concluded that NGOs active in post-conflict societies must strive to create conditions for dealing with the criminal past, making space for the democratic consolidation process.