Stopping the fighting is just the first step in bringing about lasting peace. To heal the many wounds of war and make sure violence does not erupt again, justice is often needed as part of the long and difficult process of reconciling warring parties. Our analysts have examined diverse mechanisms used to provide transitional justice and allow reconciliation to take place, in Colombia, in Sri Lanka, in Sudan and many other peace processes.
On 10 December, the International Court of Justice convened to hear an opening request in a genocide case filed against Myanmar for its atrocities against Rohingya Muslims. In this Q&A, Crisis Group expert Richard Horsey looks at the legal and diplomatic stakes of these proceedings.
Originally published in Foreign Affairs
A successful agreement [between the Yemeni government and southern secessionists] would keep a lid on violence long enough to allow progress in other parts of the country.
A U.S.-Taliban deal cannot be a peace agreement because it settles nothing about the dispute within Afghanistan. It only settles the question of the American presence in Afghanistan.
If the Russians have decided that they now care about the verbatim implementation of [the de-escalation] agreement then that is a big problem for Idlib and for Turkey.
An agreement that is just between the US and the Taliban is not a peace agreement for Afghanistan.
I think Kim wanted to win the hearts [of people] and draw some sympathy for himself and his regime, as part of an effort to weaken resolve to maintain sanctions and pressure.
China views its agreement with the new [UN] sanctions [against North Korea] as a favour to the U.S. and will now expect something in return.
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Review our privacy policy for more details.