Evaluating transitional justice: accountability and peacebuilding in post-conflict Sierra Leone
In: Rethinking peace and conflict studies
36 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Rethinking peace and conflict studies
World Affairs Online
In: Global responsibility to protect: GR2P, Band 9, Heft 3, S. 243-266
ISSN: 1875-984X
The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) was envisaged by its authors to encompass a wide range of human rights protections. In order to gain state support for the idea of the R2P, its focus was narrowed to the protection of populations from atrocity crimes. This article challenges the 'atrocity lens', arguing that the restricted focus is both practically and conceptually flawed. Practically, it has failed to inspire action in situations where there were good reasons to believe that atrocities were occurring. Conceptually, it has led to a counterproductive focus in R2P implementation on conflict and on particular actors within conflict. The article therefore explores the possibilities and implications of stretching the focus of R2P back to the broader vision found within the iciss report. It concludes that there are significant potential benefits to adopting a 'human rights lens' if states are willing to fulfil their pillars one and two responsibilities.
In: Oxford Research Encyclopaedia of International Studies. Oxford University Press and the International Studies Association
SSRN
In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies
"Virtue Ethics and International Relations" published on by Oxford University Press.
In: International affairs, Band 91, Heft 1, S. 37-54
ISSN: 1468-2346
In: International affairs, Band 91, Heft 1, S. 37-54
ISSN: 0020-5850
The establishment of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) process and the International Criminal Court (ICC) were seen by many to constitute significant progress in the protection of human rights. However, these institutions are now in crisis, due in large part to their failure to prevent or prosecute recent acute human rights abuses in Syria. There have been two responses to this crisis: the first assumes that the crisis is caused by the current structures of international governance, in particular the power of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), and calls for radical reform. The second sees possibilities within the current structure and advocates making R2P and the ICC more closely aligned under UNSC control. The article argues that both responses are mistaken and sets out an argument in favour of refocusing on the complementary nature of each institution. The Court's most successful actions have been in exercising the powers afforded by its complementary jurisdiction in situations such as Colombia. Similarly, R2P works more successfully at preventing conflict and changing expectations of acceptable state behaviour than it does at confronting situations in which large-scale violence has begun. The article argues that the ICC and R2P should focus on 'positive complementarity' agendas, with the ICC devoting more resources to assisting states to build legal capacity in order to deter future conflict through stronger domestic criminal systems, and advocates of R2P focusing less on intervention in live conflict situations and more on building within states the capacity and resources to protect their own populations. (International Affairs (Oxford) / SWP)
World Affairs Online
In: International Affairs, Band 91(1), S. 37-54
SSRN
In: Cambridge review of international affairs, Band 24, Heft 3, S. 309-333
ISSN: 1474-449X
In: Human rights review: HRR, Band 12, Heft 2, S. 241-246
ISSN: 1874-6306
Comments on a special journal issue on "Human Rights as Ideal and Practical Politics.". Adapted from the source document.
In: Ethics & international affairs, Band 25, Heft 4, S. 407-431
ISSN: 1747-7093
Since 1945 responsibility for atrocity has been individualized, and international tribunals and courts have been given effective jurisdiction over it. This article argues that the move to individual responsibility leaves significant 'excesses' of responsibility for war crimes unaccounted for. When courts do attempt to recognize the collective nature of war crime perpetration, through the doctrines of 'command responsibility', 'joint criminal enterprise' and 'state responsibility', the application of these doctrines has, it is argued, limited or perverse effects. The article suggests that instead of expecting courts to allocate excesses of responsibility, other accountability mechanisms should be used alongside trials to allocate political (rather than legal) responsibility for atrocity. The mechanisms favored here are 'Responsibility and Truth Commissions', i.e. well-resourced non-judicial commissions which are mandated to hold to account individual and collective actors rather than simply to provide an account of past violence.
In: Ethics & International Affairs, Band 25(4), S. 407-431
SSRN
In: Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Band 24(3), S. 309–33
SSRN
In: Ethics & international affairs, Band 25, Heft 4, S. 407-432
ISSN: 0892-6794
In: International affairs, Band 87, Heft 2, S. 467-468
ISSN: 0020-5850
In: Cambridge review of international affairs, Band 24, Heft 3, S. 309-334
ISSN: 0955-7571