Abstract:
The issue of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon’s use of in absentia has become a complex political debate in Lebanon and an intricate legal discussion in the international tribunal system. The Tribunal’s creation was ignited by the assassination of ex-Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and put the political situation in Lebanon into disarray. The assassination molded the modern-day political parties found in Lebanon and was a continuation of the violent assassinations in Lebanese politics. The STL’s creation shortly thereafter laid a foundation for the eventual decision by the Tribunal to use in absentia, a trial in the absence of the defendant. The definition of in absentia has been debated and the Tribunal’s current implementation of in absentia has allowed the Tribunal to host a trial by default, a trial without any evidence the defendants have knowledge of the charges.
The decision to implement in absentia has placed an extra burden upon the already weak political system in Lebanon. The implications of any decision at the STL has a multiplied effect in Lebanon’s politics. This thesis looks at the legal definition of in absentia and trial by default based upon previous legal systems, decisions, and tribunals. The thesis then looks at how in absentia is applied at the STL and what the political ramifications are for the use of this legal concept. The thesis finds that the
STL adapted its legal understanding of in absentia to fit the political situation in Lebanon and the surrounding region. The thesis explains how the development of the international tribunal system and the history of politics in Lebanon has allowed the STL to wrongly justify in absentia’s use.
