•  
  •  

Home > Sturm College of Law > Denver Journal of International Law & Policy > Vol. 53 (2024-2025) > No. 1 (2024)

 

Mireille Rebeiz

Abstract

According to the Amnesties, Conflict, and Peace Agreement dataset, 320 amnesties were adopted in the context of armed internal and international conflicts to military coups, civil unrest, and political crises since 1990: 75% of amnesties adopted were related to conflict, and 49% of peace agreements adopted in the same period included amnesty provisions. These high numbers clearly indicate that amnesties are not a legal tool of the past, and that they continue to be widely used especially in the Global South. In the context of transitional justice, they may be negotiated to end violence or help move from an authoritarian to a democratic form of governance, especially when restorative measures such as truth commissions are adopted. However, amnesties may be problematic as they may go against a State’s obligation to investigate and prosecute serious crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Therefore, amnesty cannot be absolute and should have limits. This article argues against blanket amnesty and for the need to adopt a treaty banning blanket amnesty law. As an example, this article focuses on the case of the Lebanese General Amnesty Law of 1991 and its impact today. By implementing this law, Lebanon violated some of its international obligations, including the obligation to prosecute serious crimes. Furthermore, although the General Amnesty Law of 1991 helped promote fragile peace, it created a culture of impunity and violated survivors’ right to know the truth. Today, the impact is dramatic, this blanket amnesty has empowered former militia members and war lords to run for elections and occupy public offices. Contrary to what literature suggests, it did not contribute to the building of a sustainable peace but rather a fragile one.

Download



Share

COinS