Skip to main content
Legal Advice Centre

Sometimes one must be content with imperfection: a blog on justice and peace in our modern world

Justice is supposed to be the foundation of peace. But is it really? Looking at the world today, it sometimes feels like justice is just a formality—a system that exists but doesn’t always deliver. If courts and treaties could truly prevent war and conflict, why do we still see violence, occupation, and unresolved disputes?

Published:

I recently attended a seminar at the London School of Economics titled International Courts After Gaza, where Dr. Devika Hovell pointed out a major limitation of international courts: they can state the law, but they lack real power to enforce it. This made me think, if justice lacks enforcement, can it actually bring peace? As a law student and aspiring international lawyer I wondered: What is the point of having regulations and law then?

In this article I will explore the original ambitions of justice, and its limitations today, to be able to grasp what is within and outside of our control, in an effort to provide a sense of hope and reassurance.

The origins of international justice

The idea that war should be regulated isn’t new. In religious texts such as the Quran, Bible, and Torah, the justifications, rules of conduct and ethics for war are largely discussed. Additionally, in the 5th century BC, Sun Tzu wrote the Art of War in which he detailed strategies in war, while establishing principles. Somalia’s rich military history spans from ancient empires like the Kingdom of Punt to medieval Islamic sultanates such as the Ajuran Empire and the Adal Sultanate, so Somalian culture also has traditional codes like "biri-ma-geydo", a longstanding commitment to protecting vulnerable groups even amidst conflict (a concept recognisable in international law today).

Over the centuries, wars have needed, more and more, to be “just”—fought with clear intentions rather than for greed or revenge. The principles of jus ad bellum (the right to war) and jus in bello (laws within war), were created to maintain some form of order.

The 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty Years’ War, was one of the first attempts at global order. It introduced the idea of state sovereignty, meaning countries couldn’t interfere in each other’s affairs. Fast forward to 1864, and we see the first Geneva Convention, spearheaded by the International Committee of the Red Cross, aiming to protect wounded soldiers. This was a major step toward what we now call modern international law.

Despite these efforts, justice was often selectively applied. The Treaty of Versailles (1919), for example, focused on punishing Germany after World War I, fuelling resentment that ultimately led to World War II. But after the horrors of the Holocaust, the world saw something unprecedented: The Nuremberg Trials. For the first time, leaders of a defeated nation were held accountable in court. This sparked the idea that justice could be a tool for peace. It sparked hope.

Justice in Practice

Justice has played a key role in post-war peacekeeping. The United Nations (UN), founded in 1945, set up a global governance system designed to prevent future wars. It pushed for decolonisation, fostered international cooperation, and developed transitional justice, a process aimed at rebuilding societies after mass atrocities. A notable example is Rwanda, where the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda helped hold perpetrators of the 1994 genocide accountable. As the ICTR was focused on mainly prosecuting the big political actors of this genocide, the gacaca, a local transitional justice process, took place on the grass, the name referring to the short grass on which these village courts were held. Although it was not specifically professional and formal like the ICTR, it managed to try a lot more people than the ICTR ever could because the genocide was perpetrated from neighbour to neighbour. Only prosecuting the political actors would have left a cavity in the hope the victims had for justice as perpetrators of this genocide would have been left without being held accountable.  Today, while tensions between Hutus and Tutsis still exist, and while the gacaca process has been criticised, large-scale violence has been avoided.

But justice has its limits. International criminal trials including the International Military Tribunal convened at Nuremberg and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, have been criticised as amounting to 'victors' justice

The five permanent members of the UN Security Council (U.S., UK, France, China, Russia)  still hold more power than other member states, even though the UN charter states that all states are equal and sovereign. They have the veto power, meaning that a single country can block international action—even when mass atrocities are happening. This selectiveness has led to accusations that international justice is biased. If one country can shield itself or its allies from prosecution, is justice truly being served?

Despite all of this, the main point is that international law is finally codified, with the Geneva Conventions, the International Committee of the Red Cross upholding International Humanitarian Law, and the United Nations laying the grounds for codified International Law, making the whole process of justice even more credible.

So, can justice ever truly bring peace?

In an ideal world, yes. Justice would be fair, impartial, and consistently applied. But in the world we live in, justice is often flawed, selective, and politically driven. However, does that mean we should abandon it? Not at all. A flawed justice system is still better than no justice at all.

What matters is ensuring that the principles of justice are respected. The more balanced and impartial the system, the greater the chance for real peace. Justice might not be perfect, but it’s still the best tool we have for holding power accountable and preventing conflict.

By Yasmin Strick Von Linschoten, Student Blog Writer at QMLAC and LLB Law Student. 

This blog is for information only and does not constitute legal advice on any matter. While we always aim to ensure that information is correct at the date of posting, the legal position can change, and the blogs will not ordinarily be updated to reflect any subsequent relevant changes. Anyone seeking legal advice on the subject matter should contact a specialist legal representative.

Sources:

https://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/eprint/382/1/Aldawoody09PhD.pdf

Https://international-review.icrc.org/sites/default/files/irrc_858-5.pdf 

https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1483&context=hsgconference

https://www.icrc.org/en/law-and-policy/jus-ad-bellum-and-jus-bello

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gci-1949

Https://www.britannica.com/event/Peace-of-Westphalia 

Https://www.ictj.org/sites/default/files/ICTJ-DDR-Rwanda-CaseStudy-2009-English.pdf 

Https://histoiregeoenvideos.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/axe-2-histoire-memoires-et-justice.pdf 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/mar/17/worlddispatch.rwanda

 

 

Back to top