Der Begriff Transitional Justice etablierte sich am Ende der 1990er-Jahre in Politik und Politikberatung sowie in der sozial- und rechtswissenschaftlichen Forschung. Er steht für den gesellschaftlichen und politischen Umgang mit Verbrechen, die während eines Bürgerkriegs oder vor einem politischen Umbruch begangen wurden. Anne K. Krüger widmet sich in ihrem Beitrag dem Verhältnis der Transitional Justice-Forschung zu deutschen Debatten über die "Vergangenheitsaufarbeitung", zeichnet die unterschiedlichen Forschungsrichtungen in diesem oftmals praxisbezogenen Feld nach und skizziert schließlich Anschlusspunkte für die Zeitgeschichtsschreibung.
This publication deals with the topic of transitional justice. In six case studies, the authors link theoretical and practical implications in order to develop some innovative approaches. Their proposals might help to deal more effectively with the transition of societies, legal orders and political systems. Young academics from various backgrounds provide fresh insights and demonstrate the relevance of the topic. The chapters analyse transitions and conflicts in Sierra Leone, Argentina, Nicaragua, Nepal, and South Sudan as well as Germany's colonial genocide in Namibia. Thus, the book provides the reader with new insights and contributes to the ongoing debate about transitional justice. ; Gegenstand dieser Publikation ist das Thema "Transitional Justice". In sechs Fallstudien verknüpfen die Autoren theoretische und praktische Implikationen, um innovative Ansätze zu entwickeln. Ihre Vorschläge wollen dazu beitragen, den Übergangsprozess von Gesellschaften, Rechtsordnungen und politischen Systemen effektiver zu gestalten. Nachwuchswissenschaftler mit unterschiedlichem fachlichem Hintergrund geben hier neue Einblicke und zeigen die fortdauernde Relevanz des Themas. Die Kapitel analysieren Übergänge und Konflikte in Sierra Leone, Argentinien, Nicaragua, Nepal und Süd-Sudan sowie den kolonialen Völkermord in Namibia. So liefert das Buch dem Leser neue Erkenntnisse und trägt zur laufenden Debatte über das Thema "Transitional Justice" bei.
The economic and social dimension of transitional justice has been largely ignored in favour of traditional emphasis on violations of civil and political rights. While early transitional justice processes mainly focused on criminal prosecutions for bodily integrity violations, socioeconomic issues, including economica and social rights (herein ESRs) violations, were seen just as part of background. However, scholarship and practitioners are increasingly calling to include ESRs violations in transitional justice processes. Indeed, economic and social conditions are frequently linked to human rights abuses, often constituting a cause, means or consequence of conflict and authoritarianism. Including the assessment of ESRs violations as an issue for transitional justice might serve the purpose of establishing a more comprehensive understanding of the root causes of past human rights violations as well as to facilitate the pathway to achieve a sustainable peace.
This paper examines the current security-governance-development nexus, something that is often also discussed under the concept of transitional justice (TJ). The paper analyses how the ambiguous, evolving and expanding nature of the concept of TJ affects the planning, coordination, evaluation and assessment of aid given to conflict ridden, post-conflict or (post) authoritarian societies in order to strengthen their democracy. Special attention is paid to gender justice. Illustrations are drawn mainly from Africa where many TJ processes and mechanisms are currently taking place.
The economic and social dimension of transitional justice has been largely ignored in favour of traditional emphasis on violations of civil and political rights. While early transitional justice processes mainly focused on criminal prosecutions for bodily integrity violations, socioeconomic issues, including economica and social rights (herein ESRs) violations, were seen just as part of background. However, scholarship and practitioners are increasingly calling to include ESRs violations in transitional justice processes. Indeed, economic and social conditions are frequently linked to human rights abuses, often constituting a cause, means or consequence of conflict and authoritarianism. Including the assessment of ESRs violations as an issue for transitional justice might serve the purpose of establishing a more comprehensive understanding of the root causes of past human rights violations as well as to facilitate the pathway to achieve a sustainable peace.
When democratization took place in 1998 after three decades of authoritarianism in Indonesia, transitional justice became one of the agendas for the country. With the nature of compromised political transition, transitional justice brought together the interest of the elements who wished to challenge the repressive regime, and those who wished to distant themselves from the old regime in order to return to politics. As the result, transitional justice measures were successfully adopted in the beginning of political transition but failed to achieve its goals to break with the old regime and bring justice to victims. Today, after twenty years since reformasi, elements of the politics are consolidated, including those coming from the old regime. Transitional justice is undergoing a period I refer as "post transitional justice". The main character of this state is the extensive roles of civil society. I argue in this paper that civil society, in particular the human rights groups, have important roles since the beginning of the transition in setting the agenda for transitional justice until today when state-centered mechanisms failed and led to post-transitional justice situation. These groups shift strategies to work from below and from the margins, which give strong character for post-transitional justice in Indonesia.
Reparations are often held up in transitional justice as a 'victim-centred' means of dealing with the past. Yet transitional justice has often been criticised for side-lining victims in peace negotiations or for other actors appropriating their voices for their own political ends. As a result, reparations in transitional societies can often be 'transactional', an exchange for concessions made to perpetrators, such as amnesties, or as 'blood money' for victims to forego pursuing accountability. This article explores how the political construction of reparations in transitional justice can come into conflict with more international law understandings of reparations as justice. As such this article argues that reparations in transitional justice have to be better conceptualised as in balancing competing political and legal claims, as well as engage with emerging debates on transformative justice
Transitional justice has been increasingly popular in recent years as a way of dealing with past wrongdoings and restitution. Because of the contradiction between retributive and restorative justice, its techniques have made a distinct contribution to the cultures in which they have been applied. Trials (as a retributive form) and truth commissions, amnesties, and reparations (as a restorative form) are subject to a variety of issues and critiques, both theoretically and practically. Transitional justice must be realistic, which means learning from all experiences and improving work on education, financing, planning, and evaluation of processes; contributing to social and political change; and spreading the word about what is being done. When possible, different mechanisms should be combined to achieve better results.
Transitional justice has been increasingly popular in recent years as a way of dealing with past wrongdoings and restitution. Because of the contradiction between retributive and restorative justice, its techniques have made a distinct contribution to the cultures in which they have been applied. Trials (as a retributive form) and truth commissions, amnesties, and reparations (as a restorative form) are subject to a variety of issues and critiques, both theoretically and practically. Transitional justice must be realistic, which means learning from all experiences and improving work on education, financing, planning, and evaluation of processes; contributing to social and political change; and spreading the word about what is being done. When possible, different mechanisms should be combined to achieve better results.
Transitional societies must contend with a range of complex challenges as they seek to come to terms with and move beyond an immediate past saturated with mass murder, rape, torture, exploitation, disappearance, displacement, starvation, and all other manner of human suffering. Questions of justice figure prominently in these transitional moments, and they do so in a dual fashion that is at once backward and forward looking. Successor governments must think creatively about building institutions that bring justice to the past, while at the same time demonstrate a commitment that justice will form a bedrock of governance in the present and future. This is no easy task, and shortcuts, both in dealing with the past and in building a just future, often appear irresistible. In Martha Minow's words, justice at this juncture amounts to replacing "violence with words and terror with fairness," and steering a "path between too much memory and too much forgetting." The template of mechanisms available to undertake transitional justice are familiar to those who work in this field: prosecutions (domestic and international); truth and reconciliation commissions; lustration (the shaming and banning of perpetrators from public office); public access to police, military and other governmental records; public apology; public memorials; reburial of victims; compensation or reparation to victims and/or their families (in the form of money, land, or other resources); literary and historical writing; and blanket or individualized amnesty. In most cases, justice demands the deployment of a number of these tools, given that no one of them can adequately address and repair the injuries of the past nor chart a fully just future. Transitional justice will always be both incomplete and messy.
Th is article questions whether transitional justice can deliver social change. Th e author discusses the importance of re-assessing expectations so that transitional justice processes and the legal framework that drives them, including international human rights law, are used to achieve what they are able to deliver. By classifying social change in three categories, namely: ordinary changes, structural changes and fundamental changes, the author argues that a fundamental social change happens when social struggle is able to put forward a new dominant ideology inspired by radically different values to those that allowed the repression or the conflict to take place. While it is not realistic to expect transitional justice to deliver development, democracy, rule of law or peace, the author argues, transitional justice, when properly conducted, can indeed contribute to deliver fundamental change but it cannot deliver it on its own.
This dissertation is about how democracies can respond to economic crises. At its centre is the dilemma that political elites, and societies as a whole, face after such an event –whether to focus exclusively on forward-looking policies that secure a recovery or whether to also address the underlying causes of the crisis, learning the lessons of the past but also weathering the divisiveness and recrimination this exercise is likely to elicit. To engage with this dilemma, this research takes inspiration from the field of transitional justice on how societies can deal with the past, and learn from it. Of special interest are the mechanisms of transitional justice. Truth commissions most prominently, but also prosecutions, reparations, and constitutional reforms. The analysis moves from a cross-country comparison of truth commissions deployed in Iceland, Ireland, and Greece after the Great Recession, to a case study of a comprehensive range of mechanisms deployed in Iceland, to an impact assessment of the most effective of the three truth commission. I will argue that the transitional justice framework brings helpful and practical insights when applied to the study of economic crises in established democracies. It challenges the conventional wisdom that 'business as usual' will prevail after an economic crisis; it also yields principles for designing mechanisms that promote learning from the past and building-in better practices in the future.
The purpose of this thesis is to analyse the increasing role of transitional justice in world politics and on-going peace processes. The indisputable increase in such procedures has certainly encouraged a vigorous debate on their suitability to politically stabilise the countries, which have suffered a belligerent period. The theoretical framework of my work is based on the constructivist idea that international organizations have the capability to emancipate themselves from their origin of power, the states, and to define themselves as an independent actor in international politics, also helped by the intrinsic nature of bureaucracy. Thus, I develop a game theory model of the belief that behaviour of international and internal criminals is based on a principle of rational choice. I defend the concept of rational choice, which is affected by the environment where it is implemented. In particular, an environment, which is more aware of international and human rights, can positively affect peace talks. Uganda is the central case for various reasons. Above all else, Uganda is the first instance ever of a transitional justice – represented by the International Criminal Court – issuing warrants before the end of the conflict. Furthermore, Uganda has not been seriously influenced by world top powers and it lies in the Central Africa, where the most recent cases of transitional justice took place. As is evident from my studies, I see a clear change in Uganda situation widely thanks to the sensitizing role of the International Criminal Court. Unfortunately, at the moment of writing (April 2009), lasting peace seems still a long way off, but the situation has clearly improved since the involvement of the ICC in the conflict. Asiasanat:Transitional Justice Game Bayes ICC Uganda LRA Museveni Kony Acholi Ajwaki
Transitional societies must contend with a range of complex challenges as they seek to come to terms with and move beyond an immediate past saturated with mass murder, rape, torture, exploitation, disappearance, displacement, starvation, and all other manner of human suffering. Questions of justice figure prominently in these transitional moments, and they do so in a dual fashion that is at once backward and forward looking. Successor governments must think creatively about building institutions that bring justice to the past, while at the same time demonstrate a commitment that justice will form a bedrock of governance in the present and future. This is no easy task, and shortcuts, both in dealing with the past and in building a just future, often appear irresistible. In Martha Minow's words, justice at this juncture amounts to replacing "violence with words and terror with fairness," and steering a "path between too much memory and too much forgetting." The template of mechanisms available to undertake transitional justice are familiar to those who work in this field: prosecutions (domestic and international); truth and reconciliation commissions; lustration (the shaming and banning of perpetrators from public office); public access to police, military and other governmental records; public apology; public memorials; reburial of victims; compensation or reparation to victims and/or their families (in the form of money, land, or other resources); literary and historical writing; and blanket or individualized amnesty. In most cases, justice demands the deployment of a number of these tools, given that no one of them can adequately address and repair the injuries of the past nor chart a fully just future. Transitional justice will always be both incomplete and messy.
The legitimacy of transitional justice currently derives from the contribution it makes to the recognition of victims. Adding the aspect of authoritative power to ongoing debates on transitional justice, however, could significantly alter our views on recognition. Recognition is widely believed to be key to overcoming traumatic experiences. At the same time, however, it strengthens authoritative power. Seeking a more nuanced understanding of the recognition-power nexus, the paper provides a rough and critical account of various understandings of recognition and power on the part of authors such as Honneth, Fraser, Bertram and Celikates, Ikäheimo, Arendt, Foucault, Popitz, and Bourdieu. It then examines how these theoretical approaches intersect and speak to each other. To see recognition as a reciprocal interaction sensitive to power relations is to pave the way for a power-sensitive turn in current debates on victim-centred transitional justice. Multidirectional relationships of power exist, with varying forms of coercion, resistance, and struggle. This insight corresponds with the observation, seen from the other perspective, that truth and recognition are inside power. Placing theoretical approaches to power and recognition side by side has strong implications for politics. The paper therefore applies these theoretical insights to the Colombian peace process, showing the potential and pitfalls of putting recognition into practice.
