A Critical Examination of the Priority Given to Restorative Justice in Addressing Crimes Against Humanity

Abstract

Crimes against humanity represent some of the gravest violations of international criminal law, involving widespread or systematic attacks directed against civilian populations. The traditional response to such crimes has largely relied upon retributive justice mechanisms emphasizing criminal accountability, prosecution, and punishment. However, the increasing prominence of restorative justice within transitional justice discourse has generated significant debate regarding its suitability in addressing mass atrocities. This paper critically examines whether restorative justice should be prioritized when dealing with crimes against humanity. It evaluates the conceptual foundations of restorative and retributive justice and analyzes their applicability within the framework of international criminal law. The study further explores the role of international institutions, including the International Criminal Court and ad-hoc tribunals, in promoting accountability for such crimes. While restorative justice offers important contributions through reconciliation, victim participation, truth-telling, and societal healing, the paper argues that it cannot adequately replace retributive justice in cases involving large-scale atrocities. The gravity and organized nature of crimes against humanity necessitate strong punitive mechanisms to ensure deterrence, uphold international legal norms, and prevent impunity. Consequently, the paper concludes that restorative justice should function as a complementary mechanism within broader transitional justice frameworks rather than as the primary response to crimes against humanity.