Comparing the Impact of the Interpretation of Peace Agreements by International Courts and Tribunals on Legal Accountability and Legal Certainty in Post-Conflict Societies

Abstract

This article compares and contrasts the interpretation of the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement 1999 by the International Court of Justice, the Peace Agreement between the Government of Sierra Leone and the Revolutionary United Front of Sierra Leone by the Special Court for Sierra Leone and the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina by the European Court of Human Rights. In doing so, it critically analyses the approach of the three different tribunals and it attempts to explain the differences identified on the basis of the jurisdictional scope of each tribunal and the substantive law each one has been tasked to apply. This comparison is both substantive and procedural. The article then examines the impact that these three tribunals have had on two specific aspects of the rule of law: legal accountability and legal certainty, both internationally and in the countries under examination. While having enhanced legal certainty and accountability on the international level, it is argued that such a contribution on the domestic rule of law is questionable.