Charles Taylor, the ex-President of Liberia has been given a 50 year jail sentence for his part in the civil war that tore neighbouring Sierra Leone apart throughout the 1990’s and into the early 21st century.
This is a landmark case, one that will be remembered in history as the start of an era of condemnation of the violence in the post-colonial world. Taylor becomes the first former head of state to be convicted and jailed for war crimes since the Nuremberg trials, in which Karl Donitz (who briefly became head of state in Germany after Hitler’s death), was imprisoned for 15 years after being convicted of planning wars of aggression and of war crimes.
Taylor’s sentencing indicates that the special courts, established in the wake of conflicts in Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Cambodia, East Timor, Lebanon and Sierra Leone, are achieving their long-term aims of convicting the leaders of the conflict, the ones who exercised control and encouraged people to undertake acts of great violence.
However does the case indicate a new era in war crimes? Two of the biggest criticisms of the trials are firstly that the trials take too long and are notorious for failing to quickly and effectively deliver the results craved by the victims of these conflicts. Taylor’s case opened in 2007, but it was not until 5 years later that he was convicted of the crime and therefore does not seem to indicate any reversal of the characteristics of these international courts.
Secondly many question why certain conflicts generate war crimes trials, whilst others appear to receive no justice. There are questions asking whether the conflict in Libya, or any of the other states involved in the Arab Spring, will result in a trial. Action undertaken by the International Criminal Court to try to arrest Gaddafi would suggest that further judicial action will occur, but this is neither confirmed nor guaranteed. Other conflicts, including the Sri Lankan Civil War, have seen alleged war crimes but no official court action, like what has been seen for the Sierra Leone conflict, leading people to ask why? Why do certain conflicts get no international justice?
Charles Taylor’s sentence is indicative of a new era in war crimes, but will it change how the International Criminal Courts operates? Will we see an era in which all conflicts, where war crimes are alleged to have occurred, are to be put on trial?
Charles Taylor may be the first former head of state to be convicted in 50 years but he may not be the last.
A Little View of the World 
The international community has mixed responses to atrocious actions in different countries, why have we allowed the regime in zimbabwe to continue without being called before international courts? Maybe fear of involvement without economic gain has something to do with it? Perhaps they are allowed to get too distant from their actions before being bought before the international courts?
Exactly, international justice seems to be arbitary and excludes many regimes, conflicts and leaders who probably should, and do not face the courts. However I believe that the issue regarding regimes such as Zimbabwe goes further than just international justice, but international intervention as a whole. I recently looked at this in depth and used Zimbabwe as my example of a regime. I believe that the root of this lack of intervention in economics, as the USA has been able to look for alternative, less controversial sources of the goods Zimbabwe can provide. For example City Bank was relocated from Harare to Botswana, where it could run its African headquarters. The economic isolation has meant that the country has slipped out of the close political sphere of the ‘western world’ and therefore is even less likely to see intervention. For me only when the economic, social or political issues of nations, like Zimbabwe, became a critical, day-to-day issue for the ‘West’ will intervention and subsequently, hopefully, justice occur.