ABSTRACT
This chapter questions the ability of genocide trials in Rwanda and at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) to attain these goals. In so doing, it also questions the push among international lawyers and activists to ensconce selective criminal prosecution as a preferred, potentially exclusive, and uniform response to mass atrocity. The chapter posits that the key variable that should determine policy responses to genocide is the social geography of the postgenocidal society. Postgenocidal policy instruments, including those designed to promote rule of law, should therefore be contextual. The Rwandan genocide may well be an example of what Carlos Santiago Nino, citing Kant, calls "radical evil". In a restorative justice paradigm, criminal violence is viewed primarily as an injury to individuals and communities, and only secondarily as an injury to the state or international order. Jose Alvarez favorably applies the "civil dissensus" justification for criminal prosecutions in the Balkans and Rwandan conflicts.
