As international crimes strike at two societies – the local and the global – hybrid tribunals should be composed of both international and local judges. Drawing on debates in municipal jurisdictions on the principle of fair reflection, my principled justification centres on institutional and sociological legitimacy. In this article, I sketch out a principled theoretical argument defending internationalization of hybrid tribunals. It is, however, certainly unattractive and inadequate as an argument. At present, policymakers must rely on base pragmatic considerations that allege that local judges are either too incapable or too corrupt. The justification for a majority of international judges sitting on hybrid international criminal tribunals is tremendously undertheorized. These will require more proactive efforts, as opposed to the reactive approach that currently dominates. Finally, longer justice responds to the expectations that are disappointed because justice initiatives attempt to begin and end their efforts in usually short time frames.

Deeper justice is a more inclusive and empowering justice. Broadening justice is about a more holistic and multidimensional understanding of justice. The third and final step recommends that we conceive of justice after conflict more broadly, deeply and longer. Step two is to develop shared aims among stakeholders from the earliest stages when seeking justice after conflict. In order to manage expectations top-down it is necessary to identify expectations, what constitutes the gap, and the institutional problem that has contributed to the gap. The first step builds upon and improves current expectation management strategies.

It suggests a three-step process to address the expectation problem. This chapter outlines a normative theory for the management of expectations in transitional justice. While this is appropriate for certain expectations, it is inappropriate for others. Reflecting on the limitations of these perspectives, the article elaborates a nascent strand of expressivism – strategic expressivism – which concerns whether and how different actors in the field may harness the expressive power of international criminal justice in line with their strategic social and political agendas.Ĭurrent approaches to managing expectations are ad hoc, reactive, and top-down. This article develops a unique typology of expressivist perspectives within the field of international criminal justice, distinguishing between three strands of expressivism: instrumental expressivism, which concerns the justification of different practices of international criminal courts in terms of the instrumental value of their expressive qualities interpretive expressivism, which concerns the identification of expressive avenues for improving the sociological legitimacy of international criminal courts and critical expressivism, which concerns the illumination of the expressive limits of international criminal courts, as well as unveiling the configurations of power that underpin the messages and narratives constructed within such courts in different institutional contexts. This expressive turn has been characterized by a heightened concern for the pedagogical value and legitimating qualities of international criminal courts. As the glow that accompanied the kinetic judicialization of the field of international criminal justice has faded over time, scholars have increasingly turned to expressivist strands of thought to justify, assess, and critique the practices of international criminal courts.

War mongrels mac