Symbolic, shambolic or simply sui generis? Reflections from the Field on Cambodia's Extraordinary Chambers

Abstract

Although it has achieved significant milestones since it was established in 2006, debates about the legitimacy of Cambodia's Extraordinary Chambers continue to rage. These debates tend to centre on the extent to which the tribunal is continuing to comply with international fair trial standards while at the same time achieving justice for the victims of the Khmer Rouge regime. This article asserts that there are essentially three different ways to conceptualise the institutional form the CEC has taken: either it is symbolic, shambolic or simply 'sui generis'. In doing so, it challenges prevailing orthodoxies about the Court's ability to create a monumental spectacle for victims or promote a 'rule of law' agenda. It concludes that, while we may be disappointed that the tribunal has failed to achieve certain of its stated aims, it may yet prove to have instituted a valuable process in Cambodia