Suchergebnisse

War devastates the lives of those who are caught up in it. For thousands of years, reparations have been used to secure the end of war and alleviate its deleterious consequences. More recently, human rights law has established that victims have a right to reparations. Yet, in the face of conflicts that last for decades with millions of victims, how feasible are reparations? And what are the obstacles to delivering them? Using interviews with hundreds of victims, ex-combatants, government officials, and civil society actors from six post-conflict countries, Reparations and War examines the history, theoretical justifications, and practical challenges of implementing reparations after war. It examines the role of non-state armed groups in making reparations, the role of victim mobilisation, the evolving use of reparations, and the political instrumentalization of redress. Luke Moffett offers a measured and honest account of what reparations can and cannot do. This book sheds new light on how reparations can be politically manipulated, or used to reward those loyal to the State, rather than to achieve justice for the victims who suffer.

AbstractAtrocities by non-State armed groups (NSAGs) often capture international attention, but efforts to repair the harm they have caused are often overlooked. This article traces out some of the practices and tensions in NSAGs making reparations during wartime and in post-conflict transitions. It argues that engaging in reparations for acts committed by NSAGs can not only encourage greater compliance with international humanitarian law but also build support amongst civilian populations during armed conflict and facilitate ex-fighter reintegration at the end of hostilities. Drawing from interviews with a number of armed groups, the article also suggests that engaging with the armed group's organization rather than just individuals themselves can be an effective way to collectively mobilize a group's motivation and capacity to deliver on reparations, including recovery of disappeared persons, restitution of property and apologies. As such, this article seeks to contribute to a deeper understanding of reparation practices by NSAGs in order to see how reparations can be mediated and a hierarchy of reparation obligations developed.

The destruction of the cultural property in conflict zones around the world has captured international attention on the need to prevent its destruction and prosecute those responsible. This article examines the current legal protection and international criminal framework on the criminalisation of the destruction of cultural property and in particular the exception to such destruction amounting to a war crime where they have become military objectives. This article discusses the recent decision in the Prlić et al case involving the Mostar bridge, in light of its being justified to be attacked as a military objective. This article argues that considerations of proportionality are still required in such circumstances. This is vital to minimise the cost to communities and peoples whose cultural identity is bound up with such cultural objects. The article also suggests that the perfidious use of cultural property by parties to a conflict should be criminalised.

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

Reparations are often declared victim-centred, but in transitional societies defining who is a victim and eligible for reparations can be a politically charged and controversial process. Added to this, the messy reality of conflict means that perpetrators and victims do not always fall in two separate categories. Instead in certain circumstances perpetrators can be victimised and victims can be responsible for victimising others. This article explores complex victims, who are responsible for victimising others, but have themselves been unlawfully victimised. Looking in particular at the 1993 Shankill bombing in Northern Ireland, as well as Colombia and Peru, such complex victims are often seen as 'guilty' or 'bad' victims undeserving of reparations. This article argues that complex victims need to be included in reparation mechanisms to ensure accountability and to prevent their exclusion becoming a source of victimisation and future violence. It considers alternative avenues of human rights courts, development aid, services and community reparations to navigate complex identities of victim-perpetrators. In concluding the author finds that complex identities can be accommodated in transitional societies reparation programmes through nuanced rules of eligibility and forms of reparations.

Reparations have been often used victim-centred measures to redress both private harm and gross violations of human rights. However, with the increasing occurrence of internal armed conflict and political violence, identities of victims and perpetrators in protracted conflicts can become blurred for some individuals. In countries like Peru and Northern Ireland that have suffered protracted violence, victimhood has been contested around which individuals are seen as innocent and deserving to exclude any members of non-state armed groups from claiming reparations. This article explores the issue of a proposed bill on a pension for injured victims of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. It identifies that there is no consistent state practice or human rights jurisprudence in this area, but instead offers a more complex approach through four models that can grapple with the seeming diametrically opposed victimhood and responsibility, by including victimised-perpetrators in reparations programmes such as that proposed for a pension of seriously injured victims in Northern Ireland.