(Re)thinking hybridity studies in hybrid tribunals and international criminal justice

Abstract

This PhD proposes an analysis of what it means to talk of "hybrid” tribunals as a legal category. This category traditionally covers the tribunals that were set up in the early 2000s in particular contexts with both international and domestic elements (East Timor, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Cambodia, Bosnia, Irak and Lebanon). Through a discussion of the features of the main hybrid tribunals, and a specific focus on the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, the most recent and most notable in some of its features (such as the mode of creation, the applicable law or its procedural framework) the main conclusion of the research is that "hybrid” cannot in fact be defined as a legal category, these tribunals, in light of their mode of creation, being either international or domestic. Moving on from there, the PhD suggests a more elaborate categorisation of all international tribunals through the introduction of a new model based on the "levels of internationality”, which allows to think the diversity of these tribunals in a more subtle way in their interaction with national authorities. Having done this, the PhD moves into a discussion of two thematic case studies, that of the interaction between various tribunals and amnesties and the interaction between tribunals and truth commissions, notably in two situations where the question arose, East Timor and Sierra Leone. Finally, the conclusion moves the discussion away from the strictly legal dimensions of the discussions into broader questions relating to the interaction between legal orders in a globalised world. Ultimately, the key question that is raised by the PhD is that of the transformation of sovereignty, which, it is argued remains a necessary concept to comprehend the structures of legal orders, rather than a concept to be opposed as being too archaic.