The Experts below are selected from a list of 13749 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Wendy Lambourne - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Transitional Justice and peacebuilding after mass violence
Social Science Research Network, 2009Co-Authors: Wendy LambourneAbstract:Since the end of the Cold War, the international community has become increasingly involved in peacebuilding and Transitional Justice after mass violence. This article uses lessons from practical experience and theories of peacebuilding and Transitional Justice to develop a model of transformative Justice that supports sustainable peacebuilding. This model is holistic and transdisciplinary and proposes a focus on civil society participation in the design and implementation of Transitional Justice mechanisms. It requires us to rethink our focus on ‘transition’ as an interim process that links the past and the future, and to shift it to ‘transformation,’ which implies long-term, sustainable processes embedded in society and adoption of psychosocial, political and economic, as well as legal, perspectives on Justice. It also involves identifying, understanding and including, where appropriate, the various cultural approaches to Justice that coexist with the dominant western worldview and practice. A syncretic approach to reconciling restorative and retributive Justice is proposed as a contribution to developing transformative Justice and sustainable peacebuilding. The development of this transformative Justice model is informed by field research conducted in Cambodia, Rwanda, East Timor and Sierra Leone on the views and experiences of conflict participants in relation to Transitional Justice and peacebuilding.
Zachary D Kaufman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
after genocide Transitional Justice post conflict reconstruction and reconciliation in rwanda and beyond
Social Science Research Network, 2009Co-Authors: Philip Clark, Zachary D KaufmanAbstract:In After Genocide, leading scholars and practitioners analyze the political, legal, and regional impact of events in post-genocide Rwanda within the broader themes of Transitional Justice, reconstruction, and reconciliation. Given the forthcoming fifteenth anniversary of the Rwandan genocide, and continued mass violence in Africa, especially in Darfur, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and northern Uganda, this volume is unquestionably of continuing relevance. The book features chapters from leading scholars in this field, including William Schabas, Rene Lemarchand, Linda Melvern, Kalypso Nicolaidis, and Jennifer Welsh, along with senior government and non-government officials involved in matters related to Rwanda and Transitional Justice, including Hassan Bubacar Jallow (prosecutor of the UN International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda), Martin Ngoga (prosecutor general of the Republic of Rwanda), and Luis Moreno Ocampo (prosecutor of the International Criminal Court). After Genocide also offers an unprecedented debate between Rwandan President Paul Kagame and Rene Lemarchand on post-genocide memory and governance in Rwanda. Because Rwandan voices have rarely been heard internationally in the aftermath of the genocide, this anthology incorporates chapters from Rwandan academics and practitioners, such as Tom Ndahiro, Solomon Nsabiyera Gasana, and Jean Baptiste Kayigamba--all of whom are also survivors of the 1994 genocide--and draws on their personal experiences. After Genocide constitutes the most comprehensive survey to date of issues related to post-genocide Rwanda and Transitional Justice.
-
the future of Transitional Justice
Social Science Research Network, 2005Co-Authors: Zachary D KaufmanAbstract:This article, published in the St. Antony’s International Review (University of Oxford journal of International Relations), consider the future of Transitional Justice. The article defines Transitional Justice as involving “states and societies shifting from a situation of conflict to one of peace and, in the process, using judicial and/or non-judicial mechanisms to address past human rights violations.” Recent efforts to bring to Justice various individuals suspected of committing genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other atrocities “demonstrate how relevant and crucial issues of Transitional Justice are today and, unfortunately, will be for the foreseeable future.” The article first provides an overview of Transitional Justice options, including inaction, amnesty, lustration, exile, assassination, and prosecution. Then the article discusses some recent developments in Transitional Justice and their implications, including lustration (de-Baathification) in Iraq and the exile (to Nigeria) and amnesty of Liberian president Charles Taylor. Finally, the article argues that, despite the advent of the International Criminal Court, the future of Transitional Justice is likely to become more complex and no single Transitional Justice option will or even could be employed.
Lisa J Laplante - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
outlawing amnesty the return of criminal Justice in Transitional Justice schemes
Espaço Jurídico, 2012Co-Authors: Lisa J LaplanteAbstract:This Article responds to an apparent gap in the scholarly literature which fails to merge the fields of human rights law and international criminal law�a step that would resolve the current debate as to whether any amnesty in Transitional Justice settings is lawful. More specifically, even though both fields are a subset of Transitional Justice in general, the discipline of international criminal law still supports the theory of �qualified amnesties� in Transitional Justice schemes, while international human rights law now stands for the proposition that no amnesty is lawful in those settings. This Article brings attention to this new development through a discussion of the Barrios Altos case. This Article seeks to reveal how an international human rights decision can dramatically impact state practice, thus also contributing to a pending question in international human rights law as to whether such jurisprudence is effective in increasing human rights protections. The Article concludes by looking at the implications of this new legal development in regard to amnesties in order to encourage future research regarding the role of criminal Justice in Transitional Justice schemes.
-
outlawing amnesty the return of criminal Justice in Transitional Justice schemes
Social Science Research Network, 2008Co-Authors: Lisa J LaplanteAbstract:Until recently, immunity measures like amnesties were considered an acceptable part of promoting Transitional Justice in countries seeking to address past episodes of systematic violations of human rights. Politically sensitive context of countries seeking to broker peace between oppositional forces often outweighed the moral imperative of punishing those responsible for perpetrating human rights atrocities. Latin America exemplified this trend in the 1980s, while also popularizing truth commissions. The resulting truth v. Justice debate eventually sidelined criminal trials in Transitional Justice schemes, accepting amnesty as lawful. However, growing international human rights and international criminal law jurisprudence began to slowly put in question the legality of amnesties. Currently, scholars now acknowledge that to be legitimate, amnesties must conform to legal norms thus creating a standard of 'qualified amnesties' for certain enumerated international crimes. Yet, this discourse suggests that it is still possible for nations to resort to amnesties for other serious human rights violations during political transitions. This article responds to an apparent gap in the scholarly literature that fails to fully merge the fields of human rights law and international criminal law, a step that would resolve the current debate as to whether any amnesty in Transitional Justice settings is lawful. Specifically, it discusses the Barrios Altos case, a seminal decision issued by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in 2001, that declared the amnesty laws promulgated in 1995 by former Peruvian president Alberto Fujimori to be contrary to international law. Recent scholarship has ignored this decision, or otherwise interpreted it overly narrowly, despite its potentially sweeping impact on the field of Transitional Justice. Thus, this article responds by offering a more in-depth understanding of the Barrios Altos decision in order to inform the ongoing academic debates on the evolving doctrine on amnesty in Transitional Justice schemes. It also shares the particular case study of Peru to show how international law directly impacts national Transitional Justice experiences. This article suggests that the truth v. Justice dilemma may no longer exist: instead, criminal Justice must be done.
Cecile Aptel - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
through a new lens a child sensitive approach to Transitional Justice
Social Science Research Network, 2011Co-Authors: Cecile Aptel, Virginie LadischAbstract:This report examines how and to what extent Transitional Justice approaches have engaged children and considered their needs and perspectives, analyzing the experience of truth-seeking mechanisms, criminal Justice, reparations, and institutional reform. It is based on the distilled results of assessments in Colombia, the Ituri District of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Liberia, and Nepal. Children are among the most affected in countries suffering from conflict or massive human rights violations. Children have the right to express their views and be considered in processes concerning them, including Transitional Justice. Yet, children and youth have not been systematically included as focus of Transitional Justice mechanisms. As part of a victim-centered approach, an assessment of the role and impact of violations on children and youth should be one of the key lenses used to understand the context, identify the needs, and inform the nature and function of a Transitional Justice measure. A childsensitive approach should be included early in the process of developing Transitional Justice measures, and addressing violations against children should be made an explicit part of their mandates. This involves allocating resources for expertise and administrative support and ensuring that children’s issues are considered appropriately where relevant. Even in cases where children are not among those most directly or severely affected by the violations, children are important stakeholders—especially in countries where they constitute a considerable part of the overall population or even the majority—and must therefore be adequately informed and consulted. The best interests of the child, concerns for their physical protection and psychosocial well-being and for confidentiality and anonymity must be considered when engaging children in Transitional Justice.
Makau W. Mutua - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
what is the future of Transitional Justice
International Journal of Transitional Justice, 2015Co-Authors: Makau W. MutuaAbstract:INTRODUCTION The term ‘Transitional Justice’ evokes hope and renaissance. For more than a quartercentury, when the concept of Transitional Justice was first mooted, postconflict and other tormented societies have attempted to embrace it as a bridge to a more hopeful future. A number of states in the depths of despair and countries wracked by seemingly endless cycles of violence see Transitional Justice tools as a possible midwife of a democratic, rule-of-law state. In many circles, Transitional Justice has become an article of faith as a catalyst for reclaiming societies in political and social imbalance and dysfunction. Senior statesmen and leading academics have endorsed the critical place of Transitional Justice in returning societies to civilization. Diverse regions of the globe – from Europe and Central and Latin America to Africa and Asia – have latched on to the glimmer of hope offered by Transitional Justice ideas, processes and institutions. Almost three decades later, the body of evidence suggests a mixed record. There have many successes of Transitional Justice initiatives, but there have also been many challenges. This special issue of IJTJ seeks to excavate these hopes and fears of a relatively novel idea. It has sought out new and divergent voices, many with a critical lens, to ask nagging questions about the enterprise of Transitional Justice. The emergence of Transitional Justice roughly coincided with the end of the Cold War and the euphoria of the presumed triumph of free market ideologies and political liberation around the globe. In Africa, Asia and Latin America, one-party regimes and opaque dictatorships – most supported by either the West or the East – gave way to new experiments in democratic rule. Most were emerging from long nights of tyranny and despotism. Such global upheaval and regime change had not been witnessed since the era of decolonization. In Latin America, brutal military kleptocracies were in retreat, and in Africa military fascism and single-party states were put on their back foot by pro-democracy activists and human rights advocates. The close of the last century and the beginning of this one were marked by hope and the promise
-
what is the future of Transitional Justice
Social Science Research Network, 2015Co-Authors: Makau W. MutuaAbstract:This piece explores and critiques the project of Transitional Justice. It has been more than a quarter of a century since Transitional Justice burst onto the global stage. Over the years it has come to be billed as a panacea for addressing deeply embedded social and political dysfunction after periods of mass repression and violence. Many theorists and policy makers have argued that it is a key bridge to sustainable peace, democracy and human rights. But the historical record is not clear about a direct causal relationship between Transitional Justice mechanisms and specific outcomes in post-conflict societies. In some cases, truth commissions, criminal prosecutions and other Transitional Justice interventions appear to have given society a chance at a new and hopeful beginning. In others, conflicts have either re-emerged or been exacerbated. Which begs the question, is Transitional Justice the appropriate vehicle for achieving these goals? If it does not always lead to positive outcomes, why not? Are there conceptual problems and theoretical deficiencies in how we make sense of Justice and transitions that account for the failures? Or is it the translation of Transitional Justice norms into practice that is wanting? The big question is this: Does Transitional Justice have a future, given its mixed record? This piece focuses on the meaning of the concept, how its application has evolved and whether it is sustainable as theory and praxis. How defined is the concept of Transitional Justice? What exactly does it entail and what does it seek to achieve? Are political democracy, the rule of law and human rights – the pivots of liberalism – the desired end results implicit in Transitional Justice approaches? If so, why should liberalism be the germ of the new post-conflict society? If Transitional Justice promotes liberalism, who gains and who loses if it succeeds? How would liberalism address deeply rooted cultural, colonial and ethnic rivalries and inequities? Would structures of deep inequity be vanquished by these norms? Or does this conception of Transitional Justice exacerbate conflicts as it seeks to transform societies? Who pays for transformation? What about market forces and norms – do they fuel or contain conflict? If existing Transitional Justice concepts are inadequate to recover, or reclaim, societies sickened by violence and repression, are there alternatives? If so, how do those alternatives compare with present conceptualizations of Transitional Justice? Should the term ‘Transitional Justice’ itself be abandoned?
-
Transitional Justice in Sexual and Gender-Based Violence
2008Co-Authors: Makau W. MutuaAbstract:Transitional Justice concepts have hitherto paid little to no attention to gender as an important consideration in addressing sexual and gender-based violence after traumatic conflicts and wars. In this article, which was given at a Pan-African conference on Transitional Justice and Sexual and Gender-based Violence in Nairobi, Kenya, in July 2008, I explore the reasons for the invisibility of women and gender in Transitional Justice vehicles such as truth commissions and judicial and other adjudicatory processes. I argue that legal, political, cultural, and moral regimes must demarginalize women and gender at the national and international levels, including in the home to raise gender-sensitive progeny and to combat misogyny. I call for a concerted legal and political approaches and commitments on the part of families, states, civil society, intergovernmental organizations, and the market in both the public and private squares to put gender and women at the center of law and policy in general, and in Transitional Justice arrangements, in particular.
