On 7 and 8 January 2016, the Center for International Criminal Justice organized a conference on ‘Pluralist Approaches to International Criminal Justice’, with the financial support of The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) and The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW).
One of the visitors to the conference made a report on the ILG-weblog. You can read it here.
The conference served as a platform for the interdisciplinary and critical debate on the normative, institutional, and legal-cultural diversity of international criminal justice. The concept of pluralism has multiple dimensions. This perspective has been variously applied to the issues and challenges in international criminal justice, and it may furnish scholars and practitioners with a potent toolkit for the analysis and critique of its standards, practice, and ramifications. The event brought together academics and practitioners to discuss the promises and limitations of the pluralist approaches, drawing upon insights from practice of ICL and from other disciplines. In particular, the participants explored whether and how the different visions of pluralism (institutional, legal, cultural, etc.) could advance the ongoing debates about the challenges and dilemmas facing international criminal justice.
The conference is structured along six main topics, each addressed in a panel:
- Semantics of (legal) pluralism and relevance of its different interpretations to ICL theory and practice;
- Multiplicity and heterogeneity of agents producing, interpreting, and applying ICL (‘institutional pluralism’);
- Cultural hybridity of ICL as a field constituted by normativities originating from the world’s select (major) legal traditions, giving rise to critiques of both incoherence (over-inclusion) and exclusion (‘legal-cultural pluralism’);
- Plural normative identities of ICL shaped by different ‘tribes’ of professionals and informed by incompatible values and agendas (‘normative pluralism’);
- Incongruences between norms and judicial interpretations developed in different forums; the role of the judiciary in containing or enhancing the (dis)unity of ICL (‘fragmentation’);
- Interplay between ICL and relevant socio-legal contexts, which ICL seeks to order and which in turn contribute to structural diversification (‘context pluralism’).
Venue: Tinbergenzaal, Het Trippenhuis, KNAW, Kloveniersburgwal 29, Amsterdam.
With the financial support of