What ethical dilemmas does a jurist face when holding powerful states to account? Illustrate with examples.

A jurist holding a powerful state to account has to balance legal duty against political reality. Navi Pillay's career shows this. She defended Robben Island prisoners under apartheid, set precedents at the Rwanda tribunal and chaired the UN Commission of Inquiry (COI) on Gaza. In 2026 she won the Nobel Peace Prize for ensuring that war crimes and genocide are prosecuted [1].

Ethical dilemmas

• Impartiality vs. the charge of bias: Israel rejected the COI's genocide finding as "cherry-picked" [2] and as a "libelous rant" [4]. The jurist must answer by being rigorous, not by staying silent. The COI applied the strict "only reasonable inference" test and found 4 of the 5 genocidal acts, not all of them [2][3].
• Truth vs. the limits of the role: a COI finds facts but is not a court. Its chair, S. Muralidhar, hopes its findings will "feed into some adjudicatory system" [5]. Saying too much can look like a verdict, while saying too little can protect wrongdoers.
• Justice vs. diplomacy: naming leaders at the "highest echelons" [2] may harden positions and close off dialogue. Staying quiet, however, lets impunity continue.
• Effectiveness vs. futility: the COI asked states to suspend arms and jet fuel transfers and found that Israel had disregarded ICJ provisional measures [6]. The ICJ also declined to order Germany to halt arms supplies to Israel [7]. In June 2026, Gaza faced its "most devastating attack" since 1948 [8]. Should a jurist soften findings to stay relevant?
• Selective justice: the Rwanda tribunal produced landmark precedents on genocide and gender-based violence [1]. Powerful states rarely face a court with real enforcement powers. Pillay herself said the international system has been found wanting [9].
• Personal courage vs. risk: defending anti-apartheid activists under a hostile regime [1] put her career and safety at risk. This is a case of courage of conviction.

Resolving the dilemmas

• Rely on evidence and transparent legal tests, and use cautious language ("found", not "convicted").
• Strengthen courts through the ICC and universal jurisdiction [9].

Overall, the jurist must weigh truth, restraint and effectiveness, but impunity cannot be the price of diplomacy. Rigorous fact-finding, stronger courts and state cooperation can turn findings into accountability. This fits the spirit of Article 51 (respect for international law) and SDG 16. Pillay's Nobel confirms that this principled path is worth taking [1].