Search results

Au lendemain du génocide commis contre les Tutsi au Rwanda entre avril et juillet 1994, l'ONU crée un tribunal pénal international pour le Rwanda (TPIR). Quatre ans plus tard, le 2 septembre 1998, le premier procès devant le TPIR aboutit à la condamnation pour génocide de l'ancien bourgmestre de la commune de Taba, Jean-Paul Akayesu.00Ce procès est resté dans les mémoires par les précédents juridiques qu'il a créés en matière de justice internationale. En effet, cinquante ans après l'adoption de la Convention sur le génocide de 1948, c'est la première fois qu'une cour condamne un accusé pour ce type de crime, et c'est la première fois également que le viol est reconnu comme acte constitutif de génocide.00À partir d'une recherche conduite dans les archives des procès, à Arusha et au Rwanda, Ornella Rovetta retrace l'histoire de ce premier procès et les étapes de la mise en place d'une justice pénale internationale au milieu des années 1990. Entre micro-histoire et récit judiciaire, l'ouvrage explore la capacité d'un tribunal à dire et écrire l'histoire

Ethnography and anthropology are intrinsically linked, but recently other disciplines have started to draw inspiration from anthropological methods. The ongoing ethnographic turn in International Relations has spurred debate on what ethnography is, what it means and entails in practice, and how to apply it in International Relations. Some assert that the ethnographic turn could not have taken place without adopting a selective and antiquated notion of ethnography; others counter that this argument draws on a caricatured version of ethnography. This article offers one anthropologist's reflections on these issues, drawing on ethnographic work within an international organisation and a state apparatus – both of which are areas of study more common in International Relations than in anthropology. This is not an International Relations turn of anthropology, but the practical and methodological challenges it involves are relevant to the ethnographic turn of International Relations and the disjuncture between the ethnographic ideals and anthropological practice.

Despite clear humanitarian intensions behind the international protection system, different ideological interpretations and practices of the right to international protection have recurrently been a massive challenge for the implementation of the international refugee law. Not surprisingly, critical voices rising from some states, organizations, scholars, and not least constantly growing citizen grievances, indicate that the United Nations' Global Compact for Refugees (GCR) is not an exception from this historical trend. Politicization of the right to international protection has been further exacerbated by financial crises, refugee crises, and the recent public health crisis brought by the Covid-19 pandemic. The crises have subsided refugee protection and catalyzed its politicization. Despite its predicaments, the GCR can be a new window of opportunity for advancing the right to international protection even in this gloomy picture. For this to happen, the right to international protection should be understood correctly, and realistically, as a global conflict and contestation issue. Understanding the ways in which society is divided into groups with different political beliefs and different stances on international protection – known as political cleavages – will help policy actors navigate the current global political landscape more predictably in their efforts to achieve their policy goals. As the paper will show later, the groups contesting in the global political cleavage system (GPCS) for having their own international protection perspectives prevail, offer different legal norms, governance modes, and a variety of discourses on refugees, adding up to distinct alternative visions of international protection policy.