Chris Jenks


This Article examines whether the Special Tribunal for Lebanon's ("STL's") in absentia trial provisions violate human right norms and, if so, whether the right to tribunal-appointed counsel or to retrial remedies any such violation. Part I explains the operation of the STL, with particular attention drawn to the funding difficulties the tribunal faces, and details the STL's in absentia trial provisions and subsequent right to counsel and retrial. Part II compares the in absentia trial provisions of the STL to those of other tribunals to demonstrate that the STL's in absentia trial provisions represent a radical departure from prior law. The ramifications of that departure are then explored in Part III through a discussion of hypothetical challenges of extradition by accused tried in absentia by STL. Ultimately the Article determines that the STL's in absentia trial provisions were in a sense purchased at a price that will be paid by the international community.