The creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) is a game changer in the relationship between conflict resolution and the pursuit of accountability for mass atrocities. No longer must wars end before international criminal justice is pursued. But the ICC’s forays into situations of ongoing hostilities have not been kind to perceptions of the Court’s role in contributing to peace or in-conflict accountability. Twenty years after its creation, there are signs that the ICC is increasingly reluctant to target individuals engaged in ongoing wars. This chapter illustrates how perceptions of the ICC have been undermined by its forays into active conflicts and how this has resulted in an apparent reluctance to pursue active belligerents. Reflecting on the future of justice in conflict, it also examines what the Court can do to ameliorate perceptions of its impacts on peace and how to build stronger cases against alleged perpetrators involved in active wars.

The International Criminal Court seeks to end impunity for the world’s worst crimes, in order to contribute to their prevention. But what is its impact to date? This book takes an in-depth look at four countries under scrutiny of the ICC: Afghanistan, Colombia, Libya and Uganda. It puts forward an analytical framework to assess the impact of the ICC on four levels: on the domestic legal systems (systemic effect); on peace negotiations and agreements (transformative effect); on victims (reparative effect); and on the perceptions of affected populations (demonstration effect). It concludes that the ICC, through its expressive function, is having a normative impact on domestic legal systems and peace agreements, but it has brought little reparative justice for victims and it does not necessarily correspond with affected populations view justice priorities. The book concludes that justice for the world’s worst crimes has no “universal formula” that can easily be captured in law.

The International Criminal Court seeks to end impunity for the world’s worst crimes, in order to contribute to their prevention. But what is its impact to date? This book takes an in-depth look at four countries under scrutiny of the ICC: Afghanistan, Colombia, Libya and Uganda. It puts forward an analytical framework to assess the impact of the ICC on four levels: on the domestic legal systems (systemic effect); on peace negotiations and agreements (transformative effect); on victims (reparative effect); and on the perceptions of affected populations (demonstration effect). It concludes that the ICC, through its expressive function, is having a normative impact on domestic legal systems and peace agreements, but it has brought little reparative justice for victims and it does not necessarily correspond with affected populations view justice priorities. The book concludes that justice for the world’s worst crimes has no “universal formula” that can easily be captured in law.

Chapter 4 discusses transformative effect, that is, the impact of the Rome Statute and the Court on political processes such as peace negotiations, in order to contribute to ending impunity. The chapter discusses the mechanisms of the Rome Statute that seek to balance peace and justice, including Articles 16 and 53 (the “interests of justice” test). It also discusses who determines the interests of victims in peace and justice. The evidence on whether arrest warrants facilitate or hinder peace negotiations is not conclusive, although in Uganda, they may have hindered reaching a final peace agreement. Moreover, in Afghanistan or Libya, amnesties were passed, in spite of the involvement of the ICC. The coming into force of the Rome Statute does not constitute a “paradigm shift” from impunity to accountability as such, but transformative effect may be seen in certain negotiations or peace agreements.

Chapter 5 analyses the impact of the ICC on peace negotiations in Colombia and Uganda, including impact of the ICC (and the role of the Prosecutor) on the process of negotiations, on the role of the parties, on victims, and on the content of peace agreements arising from these negotiations (including the Ugandan Agreement on Accountability and Reconciliation and the Legal Framework for Peace and Havana Peace Agreement in Colombia). The chapter concludes that there was a transformative effect in peace processes in Colombia and Uganda. These agreements adopted accountability provisions. However, they provided for alternative penalties for perpetrators rather than lengthy prison terms. They incorporated the views of victims into negotiations and allowed for various victim-oriented mechanisms in the agreements. In Uganda, however, unlike in Colombia, the final peace agreement was never fully implemented. The Colombian agreement may set new standards on how peace agreements may approach the balance between peace and justice in the future.

Focusing on the various rounds of debates between the 1620s and 1640s on whether or how to seek peace or truce in the war with the Dutch Republic, this explores how agents and counsellors from different parts of the Spanish monarchy navigated the conflict between ideology and necessity-driven pragmatism in contexts of concrete decision-making. Directed at preserving and re-establishing dominion over the various realms of the monarchy, reason of state was at the heart of this weighing of principle and pragmatism. Agents were at the centre of a constant cycle of collecting and assessing information, projecting likely future courses and searching for the utmost expedience within the boundaries of royal conscience and obligations. What solutions were conceivable when attempts to preserve dominion over the Low Countries ran contrary to the demands of the Catholic faith and the preservation of the rest of the monarchy? Could special circumstances allow for special measures or concessions that might deviate from the princely obligations towards justice and the Faith? The chapter shows that as each decade of the war added to its own history, pragmatic arguments and solutions were often inspired by experience, together with a notion of extenuating necessity.

The chapter analyses the peace negotiations in Brest-Litovsk.

The increasing participation of armed groups in peace agreements, coupled with the relatively uncertain status of non-state actors under international law, raises a number of important but as yet unsettled questions. This chapter addresses three key issues. The first is the legal status of armed groups under international law. This has direct consequences with respect to the status of peace agreements, and whether they may be regarded as establishing binding international legal obligations or as mere political declarations of intent. The second is the designation of certain groups as ‘terrorist’, and the implications on their participation in peace processes. The third is the role of customary international law vis-à-vis the regulation of peace agreements. The focus of this component is on the potential role of non-state armed groups in the process of creating customary law. Of particular interest is the emergence of customary law regarding the inclusion of human rights considerations in peace agreements.

This chapter attempts to assess whether and to what extent international law can be seen as governing intra-state peace agreements; and, by turning to the practice of negotiating such agreements, whether international legal obligations, such as with respect to the inclusion of civil society actors, have emerged or are currently emerging. Demonstrating that there exist complex relationships between the practice reflected in peace agreements and international law, the chapter argues that when trying to understand these relationships, much depends on our theoretical stance vis-à-vis international law. Relying on an interactional and pluralistic conception of law, this chapter emphasises the relevance of process-related obligations and the continuous creation and adjustment of legal norms. Finally, the chapter considers the reasons why it might be desirable to ground the practice of peace agreements in international law and to allow this practice to contribute to the development of international law.

Chapter 1 illuminates the inherent weaknesses of the French colonial empire on the eve of the Seven Years War and examines initial efforts to embark on imperial reform during peace negotiations between France and Britain. The chapter uses the correspondence of Jean-Antoine Riqueti de Mirabeau, governor of Guadeloupe in the Îles du Vent between 1753 and 1755, to shed light on the problems of the French Caribbean plantation complex and to show how Mirabeau’s experiences influenced the intellectual vision of his older brother, Victor Riqueti de Mirabeau, who co-founded Physiocracy together with François Quesnay. From here, the chapter analyses war-time discussions on the future of the French colonies within the Ministries of the Marine and of Foreign Affairs. While these discussions culminated in the well-known strategy to enhance the French Caribbean plantation complex, the chapter reveals that government officials were also contemplating alternative paths to empire rooted in a vision of mutual prosperity between the metropole and the colonies and a reorientation of colonial empire from the Americas to West Africa.