The Center for Human Rights & Humanitarian Studies recently welcomed international and human rights law experts Andrew Boyle and Yasmine Chubin for a discussion on transitional justice in the wake of the Khmer Rouge atrocities. Boyle, Senior Counsel at States United Democracy Center, and Chubin, co-lead of the Clooney Foundation for Justice's Docket initiative, examined the rise and fall of the Khmer Rouge, the resulting international tribunal, and key questions within the international justice system. During the hour-long session, they engaged with the audience on topics such as transitional justice, reparations, and the political nature of tribunals.

Boyle began the talk with an in-depth exploration of the Khmer Rouge’s history. He detailed their rise from a 1970s military coup, the complex role of the United States in the conflict, and the fall of the paranoid communist regime that massacred and imprisoned millions. To convey the chaos and terror wrought by the Khmer Rouge, Boyle presented historical photographs and texts. He then provided an insightful analysis of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC), an international tribunal set up by the UN and the new Cambodian government, which began its work in 2007. Boyle described the ECCC as a tense and complicated affair, noting that only three trials were completed. As a hybrid court, Boyle cited disagreements between the international and national sides as one of the major "failures of the court", but emphasized that the court’s message remained clear: genocide was unacceptable and reparations were needed. While acknowledging criticism from outsiders and victims, Boyle outlined the positive impact of "collective reparations, [such as] healthcare that is provided, public education, monuments, and the like".

Chubin followed with an analysis of international tribunals, highlighting Yugoslavia and Rwanda as landmark cases for human rights. She discussed the challenges of hybrid courts, which mix in-country and international legal capacity. Regarding the future of collaborative international justice, Chubin stated, "Transitional justice is evolving, there is not a one-size-fits-all. The ECCC was an experiment with mixed results. Future mechanisms will have to balance international expertise with local legitimacy." She further noted that current international criminal law courts are reserved for the gravest international crimes and are often slow to materialize.

During the Q&A, audience members questioned the slow pace, efficacy, and political underpinnings of the international justice process. In response to inquiries about case selection in a world where atrocities are seemingly constant, Boyle stated, "far more atrocities being committed than there are tribunals to deal with them...there is an inherent political aspect to what is possible to do in the international justice space...it is very much the art of the possible". Chubin chimed in, stating "We're seeing quite strong reactions when theres invocation of the word of genocide...nobody wants to be found guilty". Despite the ICC and other courts lacking policing forces or methods of enforcement beyond treaties and extradition, she expressed strong support for the political power of international law rulings.

To conclude the evening, Boyle and Chubin reflected on their careers and their motivations in this complex and often frustrating field. Chubin highlighted her formative experiences, noting that she was drawn to "the blend of history and working on some of the darkest periods of human history...while at the same time working on these legal questions and new tribunals". Boyle echoed this statement, emphasizing the rewarding nature of their work and the impact that cases like the ECCC have on generations to come.