Hybrid Justice: Innovation and Impact in the Prosecution of Atrocity Crimes

The Introduction summarizes the history of hybrid courts, accounts for their recent resurgence, and sets out the conceptual framework that the authors of the subsequent chapters will work within. Proponents of hybrid justice claim that hybrid courts can underwrite a stable peace, strengthen institutions and the rule of law, and enhance human rights protections, that is, increase societal resilience. Critics note the susceptibility of hybrids to political inference if they lack authority and resources, that is, if they are not resilient themselves. Resilience is therefore operationalized in two ways within the book: internal resilience is understood to mean the extent to which the design of hybrid mechanisms enables them to function robustly and with legitimacy in the face of external pressures from donors, host states, states which oppose the mechanism, and other interested parties. Societal resilience is the extent to which hybrid mechanisms enable post-conflict societies to heal, reconcile, strengthen, and address the root causes of prior conflict. The authors use this framing to analyse the creation, practices, innovations, and impacts of hybrid courts. The Introduction sets out the main arguments of the chapters and considers contemporary challenges to hybrid justice.