Justice, Compromise, and the Khmer Rouge Tribunal
This article is a response to an article in the last edition of The Sydney Globalist, entitled ‘Rethinking Crisis’. To view past editions of the magazine, click on ‘Past Editions’ from the menu above.
Diana Tjoeng’s article, ‘The Khmer Rouge Tribunal: Judgment Without Justice?’, touched upon how the highly fractured nature of Cambodian society, with its disparate interests and loyalties, presents serious issues for the Khmer Rouge Tribunal in garnering support and legitimacy. Unlike any other international court, the Tribunal must fulfil its role as a national and international judiciary. Compromise on procedural issues will invariably be necessary, and may come at the cost of justice.
Cambodian society is highly fractured, in both its past and present political contexts. Some Cambodians support the Tribunal, in the belief that their future lies with the ruling Cambodian Peoples Party (CPP). This group also deeply distrusts the international community for allowing the Khmer Rouge to hold a seat at the UN for 10 years.
Others are opposed to the government. They believe that national problems such as corruption are linked directly to the CPP and that the trials are only a mechanism for repairing damaged political reputations. Resultantly, this group calls for greater international intervention in the court to ensure transparency.
The CPP and the UN, both of whom have indirectly supported the Khmer Rouge in the past, must find a solution and develop a process that appeases each of these disparate parties for the Tribunal to be legitimate. The deep distrust of the CPP by some, and of the international community by others, has led many to question the legitimacy and effectiveness of the hybrid Tribunal. Whether the Tribunal has allowed for adequate representation of the interests of the disparate parties remains a pressing concern, as does the degree of compromise that may be needed between various political and judicial interests for obtaining justice, and the securing of support for the Tribunal’s legitimacy. The roots run much deeper than corruption.
