After Impunity

The predominance of international criminal law as a frontline response to atrocity crimes prioritizes the countering of impunity as an overarching goal. A corresponding “anti-impunity norm” identifies the legal punishment of individual perpetrators as a core requirement in legal responses to atrocities. This anti-impunity norm – the requirement to prosecute and punish – is also a legal obligation for state parties to the International Criminal Court. But the anti-impunity norm equates impunity’s opposite – accountability – with the imposition of legal punishment. This narrow interpretation of impunity places limits on states’ ability to craft context-specific responses to atrocities while also fulfilling their legal obligations. The result is in part an explanation for why international criminal law’s future as a frontline response to atrocities is questionable. The “special sanctions” mechanism for perpetrators of atrocity crimes, part of Colombia’s comprehensive Final Accord with the FARC-EP rebel group, offers a valuable example of a national response to atrocities offering an innovative and sophisticated response to states’ legal obligations to punish under the Rome Statute. Special sanctions for cooperating perpetrators of international crime are designed to impose individual accountability while remaining distinct from retributive criminal punishment. But do these special sanctions meet Colombia’s international legal obligations? The essay develops a qualified positive response

Criminal law · Criminology · Genocide · Human rights · Impunity · Jurisdiction · Norm (philosophy · Political science · Sociology · Universal jurisdiction · Conflict, Peace, and Violence in Colombia · Global Peace and Security Dynamics · International Law and Human Rights · Law