Justice for Syria: The Role of Litigatio

Interview with Ibrahim Olabi, Founder of the Syrian Legal Development Programme and Barrister at Guernica 37

- How do litigation efforts contribute to long-term stability, reconciliation, and post-conflict transitions in Syria?

Litigation plays a critical role in fostering long-term stability and reconciliation in Syria by addressing grievances and delivering a sense of justice. This process helps individuals move forward, albeit in a subjective and personal way, and mitigates unresolved grievances that could hinder societal healing.

In post-conflict transitions, litigation is equally vital, centering on victims and survivors while ensuring that justice remains integral to reconciliation. By engaging actors with shared accountability goals and addressing conflicting policies, litigation navigates the complexities of rebuilding societal trust and relations. Ultimately, these efforts reinforce justice as a cornerstone for lasting peace and stability.

- How do litigation efforts and the regime’s control over resources impact Syrians and accountability?

There are ongoing investigations into businesspeople connected to the regime, which have economic implications. Regarding the Assad regime’s control over resources, its territorial control can sometimes complicate access to accountability initiatives. However, technological advances and collaborations with displaced Syrians have mitigated these challenges. Moreover, since international donors predominantly fund accountability efforts, the regime’s control over resources has a minimal direct impact on these initiatives.

- Can accountability curb normalization?

From a political perspective, pursuing litigation against the Assad regime complicates normalization efforts. Politically, litigation creates substantial obstacles by forcing countries seeking to reestablish ties to confront the legal and narrative challenges of engaging with a regime or individuals under international arrest warrants, such as Syria’s case under the Torture Convention at the International Court of Justice. These efforts also undermine the regime’s attempts to rebrand itself as law-abiding, further isolating it within the international community.

This political isolation extends to economic constraints, as financial support becomes harder to justify when it risks association with war crimes or sanctions violations. Ongoing cases in Europe and the United States involving sanctions breaches and financial complicity reinforce these challenges.

The impact of accountability, however, depends heavily on visibility and civil society engagement. If these initiatives remain obscure, their influence diminishes. Publicizing accountability efforts and integrating them into broader advocacy strategies amplifies their deterrent effect, making normalization significantly harder to achieve.

- What role do economic sanctions play in complementing litigation efforts, and how effective have they been so far?

Economic sanctions, especially individual sanctions, play a critical role in complementing litigation efforts. They identify perpetrators, provide evidence, and indicate that there are ongoing case files against these individuals. Sanctions also facilitate legal action by highlighting sanctions evasion or circumvention.

However, sanctions have a dual effect. While they signal accountability and deter potential violators, they can also inadvertently alert targets, potentially complicating prosecutorial efforts. Their overall effectiveness ultimately hinges on robust enforcement and their integration into broader accountability frameworks.

- Litigation is extremely costly and lengthy. What conditions need to be met for litigation efforts to be worthwhile?

Litigation must be victim-centered, ensuring that survivors feel ownership of the process. Publicity and strategic alignment are equally critical, as cases should contribute to a broader narrative by highlighting widespread crimes rather than isolated incidents. Amplifying findings and ensuring they align with a long-term vision enhances their impact.

While litigation is costly, initial expenses are typically covered by civil society organizations and victim groups, with states often taking over as cases progress. For these efforts to be truly worthwhile, they must focus on achieving deterrence, maximizing visibility, and aligning with a clear, strategic purpose.

- How does funding from donors and governments with inconsistent human rights records affect the credibility and effectiveness of litigation efforts?

While governments may sometimes display double standards in their accountability policies, this should not discourage engagement in areas where their policies align with justice goals. Litigation efforts help set a global standard for accountability, demonstrating that justice is attainable. Although such inconsistencies may appear hypocritical, progress in one context can serve as a catalyst for broader movements toward justice elsewhere.