ABSTRACT
The question of how parties are made to answer for abusing their power is of contemporary relevance beyond the context of state accountability. Corporate accountability is topical in the context of the current fi nancial recession, as seen with the Enron scandal in 2001, where allegations of accounting fraud led to the collapse of the professional services fi rm Arthur Andersen, which had been responsible for auditing the Enron Corporation. Environmental accountability continues to be a key agenda item in many domestic and global political forums, as seen with the compliance mechanism for the Kyoto Protocol, which is comprised of a Compliance Committee represented by 10 Member States, which determine the consequences when states fail to satisfy their responsibilities under the Protocol. Furthermore, an epoch in individual accountability dating from before the Nuremberg Trials has meant that national leaders are no longer able to hide behind political institutions, as seen with the 2009 expenses scandal requiring British MPs to resign or repay overpaid expenses claims. Likewise, heads of state increasingly fi nd that they are unable to hide behind their respective national government amid public scandal, as with former US President Richard Nixon, who ultimately resigned his presidency or fi nd that they cannot exercise immunity, as with former Presidents Miloševic´ of Serbia and Charles Taylor of Liberia, who were both indicted before international courts. From just these few examples it can be seen that in practice accountability is not only legal but also political and moral, while the stakeholders in accountability appear similarly varied, rather than being restricted to just a few direct victims.
