Conjunctive use of human rights trials and truth commissions
The preceding discussions, in their entirety, validate the inherent predisposition of the objectives, benefits and quality of disclosures during truth-telling in transitional societies to interrogation, precisely how this truth-telling can be esteemed as rendering justice for GHRV when weighed against human rights trials. Sikkink and Booth Walling vehemently oppose the impression that transitional societies are obligated with selecting between ‘truth’ and ‘justice’, especially that truth commissions are an executable surrogate strategy to human rights trials. They advocate for a conjunctive application of ‘truth’, through truth commissions, and ‘justice’, through human rights
…show more content…
Propelling each of the three in delicate post-struggle settings requires key arranging, cautious incorporation and sensible sequencing of exercises. Methodologies concentrating just on some establishment or overlooking common society or casualties, won 't be powerful. Our way to deal with equity segment must be extensive in its thoughtfulness regarding the greater part of its associated organizations, delicate to the key gatherings and careful to the requirement for complementarity between transitional equity systems. Our fundamental part is not to assemble universal substitutes for national structures but rather to fabricate local equity limits
Justice, peace and democracy are not mutually exclusive objectives but rather mutually reinforcing imperatives. Advancing all three in fragile post-conflict settings requires strategic planning, careful integration and sensible sequencing of activities. Approaches focusing only on one or another institution or ignoring civil society or victims, will not be effective. Our approach to justice sector must be comprehensive in its attention to all of its interdependent institutions, sensitive to the key groups and mindful to the need for complementarity between transitional justice mechanisms. Our main role is not to build international substitutes for national structures but to help build domestic justice capacities.
Human rights
Human rights believers agree that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is still a daydream, because of the violations that occur in every part of the world. For centuries, states and state officials were largely safe from prosecution for human rights violations in domestic and foreign courts. Recently this has changed, by us witnessing former or current heads of state being brought before several national and international courts or trials. In this study, Sikkink tracks and explains this truly extraordinary shift in international legal standards and practices. It is an inspiring story she calls a “Justice Cascade”. Sikkink’s book, The Justice Cascade, provides a personal and historical view on human rights prosecutions in international politics. Sikkink shows us what transitional justice is and the effects of the developing accountability norm on state behavior. In the beginning of the book,
A truth commission is a commission that is instated to reveal past misdoings of the public, government, non-state actors and the like; it is associated as typically the first step away from war or authoritarian rule. As seen throughout case studies, these commissions arise for different purposes; some truth commissions are what is chosen by the government to showcase breaches in human rights, rather than other constructive peaceful mechanisms. Although, these commissions do suggests recommendations (such as arrests, lustration, compensation and education), the country isn’t always required to do them. More so than that, these recommendations can fail the victims. A truth commission can fulfil all its duties in a hypothetical agenda, but justice
New political elites have had to decide whether leaders of, collaborators with or agents of the former regime should be brought to court or otherwise penalized, and whether and how the victims of the regimes should be rehabilitated and compensated (Pettai and Pettai 2015; Stan and Nedelsky 2015). In light of this, it is important to look into “the politics of consensus”, the groups excluded from “national reconciliation”, and the repercussions of the absence of such political justice on the consolidation and institutionalization of democracy (Dryzek & Niemeyer 2006; Pankhurst 1999; AB De Brito, CG Enríquez, and P Aguilar 2001). This is especially true of states in which a wide array of human rights abuses were employed. While many recent studies have ventured into bold comparisons of transitional justice around the globe, encompassing post-authoritarian, post-conflict and post-communist political regimes (Barahona De Brito et al. 2001; Elster 2006; Olsen et al. 2010a; Grodsky 2011), my preference in this regard is to limit the conceptual scope to a single regime type (George and Bennett 2005), since in my opinion the contextual conditions that each regime sets up for latter-day transitional justice challenges are too varied to provide for meaningful comparison. The former Tunisian regimes of Bourguiba and Ben Ali including systematic torture, political killings, unfair trials, forced exile and punitive economic practices to instill a culture of fear and quash any opposition to their rule (Hibou 2006; Bendana 2011; Erdle 2010; Haddad 2011; Jebnoun 2014; Perkins 2014). This anger also extends to those who ordered violence against the protestors during the 2011 revolution and the years that followed (Belkhodja 2013; Gana 2013; Nassif
The four critical dimensions of reconciliation truth, justice, regard and security (Kriesberg & Dayton, 2012, p. 305) were not present in this case. As a result, it will be hard for the process of reconciliation to start. The Haitian people are in litigation regarding the truth about the cholera epidemic. They don’t feel like the scientific community, and the UN are telling the truth since some papers argue that the cholera outbreak was dormant and was caused by the Haitians' themselves. The Haitians also feel wronged and that a gross injustice has been done to the country and the international community especially the United States has turned a blind eye. Moreover, the Haitian community complained about the lack of regard that the UN has for
The first thing that I have learned from the reading is the value of self-determination. According to Umbreit and Peterson, (50) self-determination is a relevant to the important social work value. Further on, the author argues that the restorative justice dialogue amongst local and international participants poses the potential of planting seeds among people to motive them towards peace and change. Self-determination refers to the belief one can be able to control his/her own determination. It entails a combination of abilities and attitudes that contribute to individual setting objectives for them and taking the initiative to attain the objective.
I totally agree with Katie. Transitional justice is generally short term as opposed to Transformational justice, which is long term, organic and sustainable. I think the purpose of transitional justice is to initiate the process of peace building by bringing perpetrators to justice and punish them for their wrongdoings. Transitional justice hasn't been a sustainable form of peace building because it only fixes one problem (temporary justice), but overlooks the socioeconomic effects of violence. Overall, transitional justice creates negative peace. In Wendy Lambourne's article, she encourages scholars to challenge western legal discourse on peace building because it isn't sustainable. In contrast, Transformational justice is a well rounded process
Gacaca, meaning “justice on the grass”, is an indigenous dispute resolution mechanism that was reinvented by the post-genocide Rwandan government to judge genocide cases in local communities. As a primarily restorative justice strategy, Gacaca’s processes of community participation, truth-telling, and compensation are meant to achieve reconciliation through a swift and culturally appropriate mechanism for accountability. While reconciliation is the ultimate goal of Gacaca, its practical benefits cannot be ignored. Rwanda’s prisons are overcrowded and the number of suspects is estimated at over 761, 448 in all categories of criminal responsibility. The approximately 12,000 Gacaca courts spread across the country are able to prosecute these cases more quickly than a national court system. The restorative justice value and the pragmatic necessity of Gacaca courts are evident in their mandate and process. According to the Government of Rwanda, there are five objectives to the Gacaca courts: To reveal the truth about what has happened, to speed up the genocide trials, to eradicate the culture of impunity, to reconcile the Rwandans and reinforce their unity, to prove that the Rwandan society has the capacity to settle its own problems through a system of justice based on the Rwandan custom.
Civil wars commonly leave countries socially and politically devastated. As a way to rebuild many countries rely on transitional justice and a new tribunal system referred to as hybrid courts. We see this first in the case of East Timor and shortly followed by Sierra Leone. Each case experienced their own successes and shortcomings that led to a difference in overall perception of the court. This leads to the question, in what ways did the the challenges differ between the hybrid courts of Sierra Leone and East Timor, and how did this affect the perceived success of either case? Through an analysis of these differences, an understanding of how general perceptions have been constructed, one may gain a more worldwide view on transitional
The vast majority of the literature discussing "transitional justice" focuses on individuals or states, not collective organizations. Mechanisms of transitional justice are fourfold and include: a justice process, a reparation process, a truth process and a stabilization process. All these 4 processes are studied as either applying to individuals or state. However, in many cases the responsibility of individuals is related to the collective responsibility of a group or an organization other than the state. The objective of this work is to try to connect the role of businesses and transitional justice mechanisms. The
The United Nations, with its rigid moral and political limitations against force, has become a benchmark of peace and a social achievement of modern times. From war torn Europe, the United Nations developed from five major powers with an initial goal to prevent the spread of warfare through peaceful means and to establish and maintain fundamental human rights. Through the past fifty years, this organization has broadened its horizons with auxiliary organizations from peace keeping missions to humanitarian aid, to economic development. However, in a modern example of ethnic cleansing, the UN faces new a new role as a bystander as its power is bypassed by NATO forces. The UN, however, promises to be an
Truth commissions, as outlined by the course, are thought of as essentially ‘good’. However, the benefit of these truth commission, what makes them good, is that they are more so learning tools for the future rather than a be-all-end-all solution for countries’ problems, as discussed in lecture. Thus, truth commissions, as observed, are successful in the instance of addressing violence, but are not so successful in transformative events that could benefit the lands and people. The success of these commissions are measured by the constituency of democracy as viewed from a primarily democratic outer-party, as brought about by one of my classmates. While truth commissions are not relatively similar at all, besides the violence taking place
A girl stands at the gate of the happiest place in the world. For some people, this place is a theme park, like Disneyland or Universal Studios, but for her, it is her home country. Completely in awe at its beauty, its magic, and its history, knowing she cannot go in, she is standing on the border of Iran. Fearing for their lives, her family left Iran during the Islamic Revolution. They will never be able to return, for fear that the government will imprison and execute them for treason. The place this girl grew up in, the home she loved, no longer exists – what stands there now is a war-torn facade of what used to be. She can stand on the mountaintop and gaze at its beauty, but she cannot go inside. As in this example, after civil unrest, war, and revolution, people sometimes live in exile. They fear for their lives because their lives appear to not mean anything to their government. They will be able to watch their native land change, for better or for worse, but they will not be able to affect or experience it firsthand. Fortunately, countries usually change for the better. Transitional justice mechanisms, the steps that a government will take to democratically recognize human rights violations and pay tribute to the victims of such violence, help to usher in a more just future. South Africa successfully used several mechanisms to transition from apartheid to democracy; Iran’s futile attempt to transform from an out-of-touch monarchy to an oppressive democracy only
The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission highly distinguished, controversial and also the most innovative mechanisms used by a state deprecative to provide a form of reverence for past perpetrators of human rights abuse.* This article will provide an extensive outlook on the perspective of victims of repression, this document will analyse and article all the advantages it will critically analyse all the advantages and disadvantages in relation to the TRC's main primary process: the amnesty inquiries, the victims’ hearings and the formulation of its policies on restoration and recovery. This interpretation will also provide beneficial notes on the past and pinpoint some important and necessary recommendations for how the
My assignment will be a discussion about Article 6 (Right to a fair trial) of the HRA 1998. I will explore the article and define it in detail. I will explain why this article is particularly important for a Police officer/Investigator dealing with an offender from the beginning of a case until a court appearance. Furthermore I will discuss the possible consequences if the Police officer/Investigator fails to comply with Article 6. Article 6 (the right to a fair trial) has been developed over centuries, originally copied from sources such as the “Magna Carta, the 1689 Bill of Rights and the common law.” (Fair Trial, 2014) But is now Article 6. Article 6 derived from the European convention on Human Rights. The European Convention on Human Rights is an international treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe and was signed in Rome (Italy) on 4 November 1950 by 12 member states of the Council of Europe and entered into force on 3 September 1953. Article 6 was created during the aftermath of World War Two, when motivated by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The universal Declaration of Human Rights “proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10th December 1948;” (Rights) It was thought to be a wider response of the Allied Powers in distributing a human rights agenda, in the hopes that the violations of human
The United Nations is widely regarded and respected as the most powerful institution that promotes international cooperation and human rights action. In theory, actions implemented by and within the United Nations are based on the mutual global goal of protecting international human rights and preventing human sufferings. These actions are constituted through three main mechanisms: the Treaty-based system, the Human Rights Council, and Security Council and Humanitarian Interventions, with the level of confrontation and seriousness in each mechanism increases respectively. While aimed to serve the mutual goal of protecting human rights over the world and have shown some successes, in a world of sovereignty, actions when implemented are in fact grounded by the national interests of each state, including embracing its national sovereignty, concreting its strategic relationships with other states, and enhancing its reputation in the international community. This paper will analyze the successes and failures of each of the three mechanisms of the United Nations regime, through which it aims to prove that when it comes to actions, states focus more on their national, and in some cases, regional interests than on the mutual goal of strengthening human rights throughout the world, thus diminishing the legitimacy of the whole United Nations system.