Crumbling Safe Havens? International Justice Regime and Conflict Amnesty for Serious Crimes

Abstract

Why does amnesty for mass atrocities persist despite the international justice regime’s efforts to end impunity? I address this puzzle by highlighting a new dynamic in contemporary civil wars: the growing risk of international prosecution in rebel groups’ foreign sanctuaries. I argue that the international justice regime—particularly the International Criminal Court (ICC) and universal jurisdiction—undermines the security of these sanctuaries, making return under amnesty more attractive for rebel groups. This logic explains why amnesty for serious crimes persists, if not increases, despite the global norm against impunity. Large-N analyses show, first, that rebel groups operating abroad and facing international legal risk are more likely to obtain amnesty, and second, that amnesty provisions increase as prosecution risks rise in host states. The findings reveal an irony of global justice: a system created to end impunity entrenches it through amnesties, while simultaneously constraining warlords’ operational space and narrowing their strategic options.