by Susannah George

I think it's a testament to how much I miss college that I keep pitching these high(ish) conceptual international affairs shows. (See last week's show on prisoner swaps.) Don't get me wrong, I, too, was swooning over Mad Men during yesterday's editorial meeting. But while I'm eagerly awaiting the second season premiere of Gossip Girl,* I'm also a total sucker for lecture hall debates over the intricacies of international relations.

War crimes tribunals are no exception. A few weeks ago I saw an article that suggested that the pursuit of justice in the eyes of the international community may be at odds with the pursuit of peace. It seems so counterintuitive — isn't promoting peace the reason the world has banded together to set up all of these international institutions? Then last weekend I saw this article that suggested that some people believe that indicting a war criminal during an on-going conflict only contributes to the continuation of that conflict. Think about it, would you go out of your way to end the genocide, if you knew that even with peace restored there would be an indictment hanging over your head?

So, the question we are asking today is: what's more important, justice (even if it's a symbolic gesture at the time, it could stand as a deterrent to future war criminals) or peace (ending conflict and saving lives right now)?**

* It's Monday September 1st btw
** And, yes, to all you reasonable people out there — the answer is a little bit of both. But think about it this way: if you had to make a choice, where would you put your resources?