The uncertain place of purge within transitional justice, and the limitations of international law in the world’s response to mass atrocity

Abstract

I seek to ascertain the proper place of international law, relative to alternative responses, in the redress and restraint of mass atrocity. This task requires that we identify the circumstances in which these alternatives prove at least equally if not more effective. We international lawyers are too quick to assume that the best responses to these recurrent episodes, both ex post and ex ante, lie within our professional domain, and that the current, widely acknowledged limitations of this legal field body would best be cured by enlarging its scope and strength. I show that, to the contrary, several of the most promising, innovative anti-atrocity initiatives in recent years, on both the national and global planes, depend scarcely at all little on international law, strictly speaking. International law can often do very little even to institutionally bolster these promising developments, despite the fact that the humanitarian ideals such law embodies undoubtedly inspire them.