In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

formal social control. At the same time, their book, Symbolic Gestures and the Generation of Global Social Controls: The International Criminal Court (2006a), was released. They note that while the ICC has been touted as a major breakthrough in the potential control of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, there are several barriers to the reality of such an ideal. They first explore the historical origins of the court and provide an overview of its basic structure and functioning, which is followed by a more detailed critique of procedural, conceptual, and practical elements of the ICC, including some problems with the implementation of the court’s jurisdiction and enforcement . Critics of the court maintain that such an institution threatens state sovereignty and advocate further limitations of its jurisdiction while proponents of the institution view the court as a potential deterrent and as a tool to empower and provide legal proceedings to victims of the gravest breaches of international law. While the volume concludes that the court is hindered by underlying contradictions existing within the international system, the authors see the ICC as highly valuable in contributing to the goal of ending impunity and holding those most responsible for the commission of state crimes accountable. Nonetheless, Rothe and Mullins (2006a) suggest that attempts to control or block state criminality can and have resulted in state actors finding illegitimate means to achieving their goals, thus sidestepping legitimate control mechanisms. While these are not the deterrence effects desired by the control modalities, they do show that state actors engage social agency as they navigate legal and organizational environments. It was with this in mind that Jeffrey Ian Ross and Dawn L. Rothe (2008) published “The Ironies of Controlling State Crime.” Ross and Rothe suggest that while social controls against state criminality are important, the results often lead to unintended consequences for the attempted controllers . Additionally, they highlight the fact that victimization of state crime extends beyond the harms of the crime itself and that state responses to control mechanisms can create secondary victimizations. Drawing on examples of U.S. criminality, they proposed eight catalysts used to negate attempts by controller(s): censure, scapegoating or obfuscation, retaliation, defiance/resistance, plausible deniability or improving the agency’s ability to hide and/or explain away crimes, relying on self-righteousness, redirection/ misdirection, and fear mongering. By implication, attempts to control state criminality may have consequences that are unintended and actually frustrate our ability to control state crime or, in other cases, may well result in additional victimization. As discussed, through the initiative of Catrien Bijleveld, Uwe Ewald, Roelof Haveman, and Alette Smeulers, European and U.S. scholars interested in international criminal law violations such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, torture, genocide, and other gross human rights violations were Part II: Controlling State Crime 181 brought together for an expert meeting in Maastricht to discuss not only the practicality of a supranational criminology but also issues of controlling such acts. This resulted in the 2008 edited anthology by Smeulers and Haveman, Supranational Criminology: Towards a Criminology of International Crimes. Here, the importance of controls is brought out by several scholars discussing issues ranging from the Gacaca in Rwanda to the problems of international tribunals constructing regimes of truth in terms of prosecution and accountability. Specifically, Jennifer Balint’s chapter, “Dealing with International Crimes: Towards a Conceptual Model of Accountability and Justice,” examines the parameters of international crime, including legal approaches to its use and civil liability. Stephan Parmienter, Kris Vanspauwen, and Elmar Weitekamp extend their long interest in and research on restorative justice with their chapter “Dealing with the Legacy of Mass Violence: Changing Lenses to Restorative Justice.” Here the focus is on not just critiquing extant retributive mechanisms but also on showing how in the face of mass violence, postconflict justice mechanisms must be more inclusive to extend to searching for truth, accountability, reparations for victims, and promoting reconciliation. Roelof Haveman then analyzes the Gacaca as a mechanism of control in response to the Rwandan genocide in “Doing Justice to Gacaca.” As will be presented in the following chapters, Haveman views these quasi-traditional modalities of justice as misunderstood and essential given the complexities and massive numbers of perpetrators and victims. Additionally, Uwe Ewald continues his research, which is drawn from his practical experience at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, by critiquing the processes of finding truth, the use of expert witnesses, and the construction of evidence in “Reason and Truth...

Share