Suchergebnisse

The reform of military justice systems / Matthew Groves and Alison Duxbury -- How well do international human rights bodies understand military courts? / Peter Rowe -- Democratic oversight through courts and tribunals / Christopher Waters -- The civil courts' challenge to military justice and its impact on the civil-military relationship / Pauline Collins -- Trying civilians contractors in military courts : a necessary evil? / Rain Liivoja -- The impact of military justice reforms on the law of armed conflict : how to avoid unintended consequences / Victor Hansen -- The impact of the 'civilianisation' of military administrative law on the 'command power' / Robert Mclaughlin -- The new British system of courts martial / Ann Lyon and Geoffrey Farmiloe -- The reform of military justice in South Asia / U.C. Jha -- Military justice in Latin America: a comparative analysis / Ivette Castaneda Garcia -- Military criminal justice in the Netherlands : the 'civil swing' of the military judicial order / Bas van Hoek -- The Israeli military justice system in the context of the Turkel Commission / Michelle Lesh -- A threatened existence-the operation and adaptation of military discipline in Australia / Paul Cronan -- Human rights and Australia's military justice system / John Tarrant -- The influence of human rights law on the reform of military justice / Panagiotis Kremmydiotis -- The inter-American system and military justice / Christina M. Cerna -- The future of military summary trials in the modern age / Aifheli Enos Tshivhase -- A rose by any other name : how the United States charges its service members for violating the laws of war / Chris Jenks -- Military justice in operational settings, peacekeeping missions and situations of transitional justice -- Michael Gibson

Fruitful connections can be made between Disability Studies and post-conflict transitional justice, two areas of scholarship concerned with human rights and the impacts of violence that have rarely been brought into critical dialogue with one another. For over a decade, one of the world's largest and best-known autism organizations, the US-based Autism Speaks, has been subject to criticisms and boycotts by autistic self-advocates and their allies. This article describes the forms of harm attributed to the organization, arguing that these harms can be viewed through the lens of what transitional justice scholar Jill Stauffer calls "ethical loneliness": "the experience of being abandoned by humanity compounded by the experience of not being heard" (2015b, 1). I argue that Autism Speaks's recent reforms and responses to criticism, in focusing largely on present-day organizational policies and structures, fail to grasp the full temporal dimensions of ethical loneliness or the importance of addressing past injustice.

Should we punish wrongdoers? Should we take care of the ones who suffered from wrongdoings? Although we may believe answers to these questions are obvious, they become less so when similar questions are asked under exceptional circumstances, such as armed conflicts. These answers may decide about the continuation of hostilities or their end. The stakes are high, while we can hardly ignore the need to deal with the consequences of violence generated by a conflict. This book discusses the dilemmas and challenges associated with the provision of justice in the context of the armed conflict in Ukrainian Donbas in 2014–2019.

International audience ; Ce vingt-sixième numéro de la revue ILCEA est consacré à l'étude du processus de gestion du passé traumatique en Uruguay. Dans la ligne des travaux de l'Axe civilisation de l'ILCEA4 sur la mémoire historique des passés traumatiques dans le monde hispanique et faisant suite au colloque international « Mémoire, vérité et justice en Uruguay » organisé à Grenoble en octobre 2014, ce numéro spécial souhaitait faire dialoguer chercheurs et acteurs du processus de gestion politique, historique, mémoriel et judiciaire des crimes du terrorisme d'État. Les apports d'experts internationaux, activistes défenseurs des droits de l'homme, membres du système judiciaire communiquent donc dans ce numéro avec les approches historiographiques de la dictature et de ses mémoires, perspectives sociologiques, travaux de psychologie sociale et de sciences politiques afin de contribuer au développement d'une dynamique de recherche interdisciplinaire sur le processus de gestion du passé traumatique en Uruguay qui rapproche les différentes formes d'expertise de terrain.

International audience ; Ce vingt-sixième numéro de la revue ILCEA est consacré à l'étude du processus de gestion du passé traumatique en Uruguay. Dans la ligne des travaux de l'Axe civilisation de l'ILCEA4 sur la mémoire historique des passés traumatiques dans le monde hispanique et faisant suite au colloque international « Mémoire, vérité et justice en Uruguay » organisé à Grenoble en octobre 2014, ce numéro spécial souhaitait faire dialoguer chercheurs et acteurs du processus de gestion politique, historique, mémoriel et judiciaire des crimes du terrorisme d'État. Les apports d'experts internationaux, activistes défenseurs des droits de l'homme, membres du système judiciaire communiquent donc dans ce numéro avec les approches historiographiques de la dictature et de ses mémoires, perspectives sociologiques, travaux de psychologie sociale et de sciences politiques afin de contribuer au développement d'une dynamique de recherche interdisciplinaire sur le processus de gestion du passé traumatique en Uruguay qui rapproche les différentes formes d'expertise de terrain.

A common trend among recent peace processes is the use of amnesty agreements as a mechanism to restore the rule of law and bring democracy back to the country. However, the international community is still reluctant to endorse them. Both human rights advocates and international organizations such as the United Nations have vehemently opposed the choice of amnesty. However, for others, amnesty agreements are still a legitimate and plausible way to achieve peace and even justice. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to examine the "paradoxical question" of whether amnesty agreements require peace at the expense of justice. Specifically, it purports to study whether amnesty agreements can aid or contribute in the achievement of justice, especially when the agreement is coupled by alternative justice mechanisms, such as truth commissions, reparations, and vetting. Section 1 of this paper will address the definition of amnesty agreements; section 2 will approach the "changing" perception the international community has given to them; section 3 will propose a definition of justice to be used for purposes of this paper; and section 4 will analyze the South African and the East Timor case, as two different examples of how amnesties can be applied in peace processes and to what extent both countries accomplished to bring justice to their people. The cases of South Africa, East Timor were chosen; primarily because of the way they applied amnesty in order to pursue a certain purpose. Though each of these cases shows several caveats, they help to understand how amnesty agreements may be applicable in different contexts and may be implemented in different ways to reach different outcomes, and ultimately justice. ; Una tendencia común entre los procesos de paz recientes es el uso de acuerdos de amnistía como mecanismos para restablecer el imperio de la ley y devolver la democracia al país. Sin embargo, la comunidad internacional sigue siendo renuente a aprobar su uso. Tanto los defensores de los derechos humanos y las organizaciones internacionales se han opuesto vehementemente a la elección de los acuerdos de amnistía, pues son vistos como cortinas de humo que promueven la impunidad. Pero para otros, los acuerdos de amnistía siguen siendo una forma legítima, plausible e incluso aceptada por el Derecho Internacional para lograr la paz e incluso lograr niveles de justicia en sociedades en transición. El propósito de este trabajo es examinar "la cuestión paradójica" sobre si los acuerdos de amnistía exigen la paz a expensas de la justicia. En concreto, se pretende estudiar si los acuerdos de amnistía pueden ayudar o contribuir en el logro de la justicia, especialmente cuando dichos acuerdos se complementan con mecanismos alternativos de justicia tales como comisiones de la verdad, reparaciones y reformas institucionales. El primer acápite de este artículo abordará la definición de los acuerdos de amnistía, el segundo mostrará el percepción cambiante que la comunidad internacional les ha dado; el tercer acápite propone una definición de justicia que se utilizará para fines de este documento; y el acápite final analizará el caso de Sudáfrica y el caso de Timor Oriental como dos ejemplos diferentes de cómo se puede aplicar la amnistía en los procesos de paz. Lo anterior, con el fin de determinar hasta qué punto ambos países lograron, a pesar de los acuerdos de amnistía, brindarle justicia a sus ciudadanos.

Drawing from the critical scholarship on transitional justice and from studies of resistance, this article brings together different observations of resistance, including different sets of actors, forms and motives of resistance, and analyzes their implications for power and legitimacy in contexts of transition. The article argues that the analytical value of resistance lies in the original vantage point it provides for an engagement with questions of power and legitimacy that inform transitional justice processes, but that are often difficult to identify on an empirical level. In doing so, it proposes a "resistance lens," that is, an explicit focus on resistance that is based on a relational understanding to resistance, in order to move beyond simplistic conceptions of resistance in transitional justice scholarship that mainly approach resistance as resulting from a lack of political will of the powerful elite to implement supposedly universal transitional justice models.

1. Indemnity and Amnesty 23. - 2. Indemnity and Sovereignty 50. - 3. Indemnity in Crisis 72. - 4. Indemnity in the TRC 98. - 5. What is a Commission? 131. - 6. The Rise and Fall of the Tumult Commission 158. - 7. A Tumult Commission of a Special Type? 188. - 8. Out of Commission: Salus or Ubuntu? 215. - Epilogue: Toward a Critique of Transitional Justice 249

el presente artículo analiza la importancia de las líneas lógicas de investigación, desarrolladas por la doctrina y por la jurisprudencia de los órganos del sistema Interamericano de Derechos humanos, sobre todo en la investigación y juzgamiento de crímenes de sistema que se cometen en marcos de justicia transicional. este análisis se realiza desde el punto de vista de las obligaciones internacionales de los estados y de los debe- res especiales que surgen para estos en contextos de masivas, generales y sistemáticas violaciones a los derechos humanos. el texto pretende ilustrar que el análisis de diversas líneas lógicas de investigación es una herramienta útil en contextos de graves violaciones a los derechos humanos, comunes a los regímenes no-institucionalizados que luego pasan por transiciones a la democracia o a la paz. ; This paper analyzes the relevance of logical lines of investigation, relevance that has been developed in the jurisprudence and doctrine of the organs of the Inter-American System of Human Rights and mainly in the prosecution and judgement of system crimes discussed within the framework of process of transitional justice. This analysis is made from the standpoint of international obligations of States and the special duties that arise for these in the context of massive, widespread and systematic human rights violations. This paper aims to show that using different logical lines of investigation as a tool is very useful, especially in contexts of serious human rights violations; contexts that are extensive to non-institutionalized regimes that then go through transitions to democracy or peace.

In the difficult process of ending civil wars, granting amnesty during conflict is seen as a useful option, with an underpinning assumption that trading justice for peace is effective. However, is the case? This article tries to bring some clarity to when and how amnesty given during conflict has an impact. Amnesty should have different effects on diverse conflict endings: negotiated settlement, rebel victory, government victory or conflict reduction. The article also disaggregates amnesties to test direct impacts as an incentive or through reducing the commitment problem, and indirect effects that give military advantage to the government. Using a cross-national dataset of amnesties in dyadic conflicts from 1975 to 2011, the research finds that amnesty's strongest effect is, surprisingly, not as an incentive but rather to reduce commitment problems. It can lead to negotiated settlements but also government military advantage. The results have implications for negotiations and conflict resolution.