Book Review

After Genocide: Bringing the Devil to Justice. By Adam Smith.Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 2009. 256 pp. $27.98 cloth.

In After Genocide: Bringing the Devil to Justice, Adam Smith challengesthe conventional wisdom regarding international judicial institutions, andclaims that in postconflict environments domestic courts are not only poss-ible, but should be preferred by the international community because localjustice better serves the interests of postconflict societies. Smith’s observa-tions are particularly apt as the international community focuses its attentionon Darfur and Uganda, and attempts to build on its experiences in Rwandaand Sierra Leone.

Smith is an international lawyer who has worked for both the U.S.government and the United Nations and whose current practice includespro bono assistance to the Office of the Prosecutor of the ExtraordinaryChambers in the Courts of Cambodia conducting the Khmer Rouge trials.He begins the book by taking the reader through the history of war crimestribunals, dating back to what many consider the ‘‘gold standard,’’ theNuremberg trials before the International Military Tribunal and the U.S.Military Tribunal. The opening is compelling, telling the story of Smith’sown family and their retreat from atrocities at the hand of the Nazis. The firstfour chapters are centered on Europe, and provide essential backgroundreading for those unfamiliar with the challenging road that led to the modernday ad hoc international and hybrid tribunals, and ultimately the Inter-national Criminal Court.

Once Smith turns his attention to the International Criminal Tribunal forRwanda (ICTR), the reader begins to grasp just how poorly calibratedone-size-fits-all international justice mechanisms can be. Smith notes howthe international tribunal, established to address the atrocities that occurredin Rwanda, repeatedly refused requests by the Rwandan government to assistthrough indictments of perpetrators (pp. 97–98). In Smith’s words, ‘‘It is notsurprising that the ICTR has been unreceptive to requests from Rwanda. Eversince Rwanda voted against the creation of the tribunal when it came up for avote in the UN Security Council, Rwandan leaders and many privatecitizens . . .have looked with suspicion at the work of the Tanzania-basedbody’’ (p. 97). Smith recounts the varied missteps of the tribunal, ranging

GREGORY S. MCNEAL is an associate professor at Pepperdine University School of Law.

Journal of the Middle East and Africa, 1:150–152, 2010Taylor & Francis Group, LLC # 2010ISSN: 2152-0844 print=2152-0852 onlineDOI: 10.1080/21520841003689167

150

from investigators and lawyers working for the tribunal who had beeninvolved in crimes and suspected genocidaires who were not only absentfrom the tribunal’s indictment list, but who were instead on the tribunal’spayroll.

These examples and others are not presented as mere hollow critiques,rather they are aimed at proving Smith’s central claim that the internationaljudicial system is deaf to the concerns of locals (p. 98). In the Balkans, theHague-based tribunal established to serve the 24 million residents of the for-mer Yugoslavia took five years to translate its statute (detailing proceduresand crimes) into Serbo-Croatian. In Sierra Leone, Smith notes that the Court’sprosecutions are not conducted in the name of the people of Sierra Leone,but rather in the name of the Court, leading many to believe that this isoutsider-directed justice from on high. The subjects of international justice,according to Smith, make claims ‘‘about actual, serious problems’’ thatpolicymakers should heed. Those claims are that international courts,

1. Prosecute the wrong people for the wrong crimes2. Are unfair in the prosecution of defendants3. Further destabilize target states by, most benignly, failing to provide sup-

port for developing domestic justice systems and, most devastatingly,fomenting new bouts of violence (p. 101)

For policymakers and scholars studying the Middle East and Africa, thethird claim is serious and worthy of attention. Smith notes that in ‘‘manyinstances of modern international justice, subject aggressors and defendantshave come from ethnic groups and peoples who have been perpetually influx, moving into and out of power, at one time serving as the genocidaire,and another time the victim’’ (p. 132). International tribunals have not takenthis flux into account, and therefore have an appearance of partiality that canexacerbate conflicts rather than ameliorate them. Elsewhere Smith notes thatthe Rwanda tribunal’s focus on genocide committed in 1994 biases the tri-bunal against the Hutus, while minimizing crimes of Tutsis. This disregardsthe fact that for decades, ‘‘the Hutus and Tutsis have rotated roles in bothRwanda and Burundi, taking turns as killer and victim.’’1 Moreover, theseinternational tribunals, according to Smith, come at a significant cost—oftentimes well over $20 million per conviction, funds that could be put tobetter use in postconflict societies.

In light of these critiques, what is Smith’s solution? He contends that afocus on local justice is almost always a more promising starting pointthan a focus on the international (p. 80). He challenges the notion that

1Adam Smith, ‘‘Adam Smith Responds to Naomi Roht-Arriaza,’’ Social Science ResearchCouncil, Making Sense of Sudan Blog, September 3, 2009, http://blogs.ssrc.org/sudan/2009/09/03/adam-smith-responds-to-naomi-roht-arriaza/.

Book Review 151

international justice is always better, more professional, and more effectiveand seems to charge advocates of international justice with a commitmentto an ideological and self-interested form of justice that is blind to the inter-ests of those most affected by atrocities. In fact, according to Smith, the focuson international justice mechanism crowds out the possibility for morenuanced responses to specific crimes, and forecloses the possibility of localinput into accountability mechanisms that hold perpetrators responsiblewhile also recognizing that those societies need institutions that ensure apeaceful future.

International criminal justice advocates have grounded their support forinternational tribunals in the belief that penal processes are the best mech-anism for holding perpetrators accountable. Ultimately, Smith contends thatthe implications for this commitment to penal solutions must necessarily leadto the conclusion that local justice is superior. Such trials can almost alwaysbe held near where the crimes occurred, and can be conducted moreefficiently and with greater legitimacy. Smith’s challenge is aimed at the heartof the ‘‘cult of international justice’’ in which he calls for a closer focus onwhat survivors, victims, and societies directly impacted by mass crimes actu-ally need, not what international bureaucrats prefer. As conflicts ebb andflow throughout the Middle East and Africa, scholars and policymakerswould be well served to read Smith’s work to gain a greater understandingof the limits of international judicial mechanisms.

Gregory S. McNeal

152 Book Review