While there is an acknowledged overlap of transitional justice and jus post bellum, there has been no real attention to delineating a clear relationship between the two or addressing the significant differences regarding aims, scope and audience. These differences must be acknowledged and a clear relationship between the two fields needs to be demarcated for both intellectual clarity and practical reasons. It seems right to question not only where these fields of inquiry fall in relation to each other but how the two can co-exist and inform each other in a meaningful way that works to the benefit of victims of conflict and mass atrocity. Done correctly, this overlap can be ushered into a coherent research agenda where the two perspectives can be brought together in a careful and concise manner. This article aims to start to address this gap.

No abstract

The term "lawfare" has been used to refer to the use of international criminal law as a tool of war. Despite the expansive employment of the term to refer to appeals to law in ongoing conflict, this article demonstrates how "lawfare" has taken on negative meaning without ethical justification. We argue that the co-opting of the term as a means of condemnation is unfair and potentially detrimental, and a more exacting definition and narrower use of the term are needed to avoid obfuscating potentially purposeful recourses to international criminal law. In looking at how international criminal lawfare has manifested with referrals to the ICC, it becomes clear that problems of negative perceptions lie not with lawfare itself, but with the intentional obstruction by parties interested in the outcome of a conflict. Tackling these negative perceptions also lays the groundwork for a necessary future argument for the international community's moral responsibility to promote safeguards to ensure that the international criminal legal system is itself just.

Given the history of the International Criminal Court in Africa, the relationship between African states and the Court is particularly significant to its legitimacy. If the power of the Court is grounded in international political support and the perception that it transcends international and national politics to deny impunity for ‘atrocity’ crimes, the Court's perceived legitimacy and normative legitimacy are so intertwined that charges of illegitimacy from significant regional stakeholders hold particular weight. More importantly, criticisms voiced by African actors point to a valid challenge to the Court's legitimate moral standing as an arbiter of global justice: the international power imbalance that seems to be becoming more entrenched and apparent in the Court's work. Tactics adopted by some African leaders of prioritising the issue of heads-of-state immunity, however, minimise the broader issue of power differentials and reduce the chance that African states will find allies in their cause to challenge the Court's operations.

If contemporary political theory in the area of international justice is to accomplish its aim of clarifying and making coherent the meaning of justice in an international context, the question of the appropriate role and responsibility of international criminal law must be answered. International criminal law must be more than simply domestic laws that are prosecuted at the international level. However, the question of what makes an international crime such that it deserves this special classification and international condemnation has not been adequately theorized. This paper examines the character of international law as expressed by two theorists, Allen Buchanan and Larry May, and reveals the deficiencies of their theories. Then, it offers the first steps to a better theory, one that demands that two thresholds be met for an action to be considered international crime: the severity threshold and the agency threshold. It argues that these two thresholds restrict the domain of international criminal law to crimes that are of significant concern to the global community by way of their threat to political organization. International crimes are the jurisdiction of the international community because they threaten the most basic physical security human rights and because they originate out of the fundamental nature of humans as social entities and maliciously distort and threaten this natural inclination.