definition of armed conflict given by appeals chamber of the international criminal tribunal

All alternative responses, at least in the context of contemporary international relations, might be referred to as ‘other’. One might say that the obvious embodiment of international criminal justice comes in the form of international war crimes trials. This is important because, while as international lawyers we have raised important questions about legitimacy and coherence, we do not always open ourselves to a genuinely multidisciplinary approach to what it means to talk about international criminal justice. This chapter explores some different perspectives and disciplinary approaches to this complex area, including political, historical and sociological perspectives. How do we learn from history or, sometimes, fail to do so? Can we use our understanding of human psychology to better respond to mass atrocity, or better, to prevent it or react to address it sooner? What of the sociological elements that are infused in our response to heinous international crimes how do these affect our understanding and practice of international criminal justice? 1 But international criminal justice is about more than responses.

Which forms of transitional justice we respond with, and how our goals are best achieved, are important questions.

How we respond to war, to the rupture of society and to systematized murder and persecution, is at the heart of the issue.

This seems to be a broadly accepted definition. At a fundamental level, it describes the response of the international community-and other communities-to mass atrocity. What is understood by the phrase ‘international criminal justice’ is surprisingly difficult to articulate comprehensively.

Definition of armed conflict given by appeals chamber of the international criminal tribunal