Description
Over the course of its institutional life, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has been criticized for the political asymmetry of its prosecutions and has repeatedly disavowed its obligation to investigate and prosecute certain violence. As a result, the contemporary project of so-called 'global justice' has been characterized by the same racialized asymmetries of imperial colonial projects which preceded the formation of the United Nations. It is this history that makes the present political moment appear as if a significant shift in the politics of responsibility. For the first time, Global South states seem to be using international courts to challenge underlying colonial logics. Two separate atrocity trials—at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and ICC—suggest this is a moment for optimism as they reckon with continuing colonial violence in real time. Drawing on resources from other contexts of political reckoning, this paper considers what happens to radical demands for accountability when they are channeled through liberal frameworks. I conduct a political ethnography of the atrocity trial for genocide to understand how and why perpetrators are found criminally responsible. I ask, why does the crime of genocide require the 'specific intent' (dolus specialis) to destroy a group, as such?
