The Truth And Reconciliation Commission From South Africa

United Nations members, and fellow concerned citizens, the world must discuss with the consequences of the initiation of apartheid. Apartheid, the separation of races completely, has become a horrible era in South African history, and has killed many innocent victims. However, the blacks of South Africa brought death upon themselves. Therefore, please pledge your support to the whites of South Africa in an attempt to save as many lives as possible in as short a time as we have. One must acknowledge that

While the students were protesting the police were ordered to fire and almost half of the students who protested were killed. Because of the incident, the South African government started dismantling Apartheid in 1986. In 1994, the country worked to gradually introduce fairness and equity also they held the first elections in which all South Africans could vote, and Nelson Mandela was elected president. In 1995, Nelson Mandela establishes the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to help South Africans solved their country’s horrible past and also has managed to move forward.

For truth commissions, there is a shift in focus from achieving justice, to restoring justice. Testimonies from victims are used to establish a collective narrative. Truth commissions create a position for victims that are not centred on their role as evidence. Rather, victims are used in promoting reconciliation through the expression of individual narratives that are transformed into collective national identities. Truth commissions provide an environment for victims to share their stories, which promotes healing within affected communities. Nonetheless, the opportunity to share stories does not guarantee reconciliation for its participants. Kathleen Mahoney’s article “The Settlement Process: A Personal Reflection” traces the journey to create the Settlement agreement. During the TRC process, many survivors shared their stories with the government but often felt as

The avowal that the apartheid ‘vision for democracy’ necessitated state terror and repression is evident when examining the South African apartheid system between 1960 -1994. The system of apartheid spiked significant internal resistance, hence, the ideology for apartheid stems from the creation of a white state surrounded by economically interdependent and politically dependent black states, which required state terror and repression to ensure mounting resistance and international condemnation did not abolish the apartheid system. The government responded to a series of popular uprisings and protests with police brutality, which increased support for armed resistance. Detentions were set without trial, torture, censorship and the outlawing of political oppositional organizations such as The African National Congress, the Black Conscious Movement, the Azanian Peoples Organisation, The Pan Africanist Congress and the United Democratic Front, were all a result of the apartheid government due to political resistance.

The United Nations states, “transitional justice is the full range of processes and mechanisms associated with a society’s attempt to come to terms with a legacy of large-scale past abuses, in order to ensure accountability, serve justice and achieve reconciliation.” One of the processes and mechanisms of transitional justice is delivering reparations.

The flaws of the commission are extensive, but there is also a well-structured base to build on for future endeavors. Woven into the fabric of the commission are the makings of a potentially successful Reconciliation commission. With a slight tweaking to the core premise, a few assorted changes to the logistics and a less meddling government the commission could stand a chance at healing the wounds.

Often, there is conflict amongst states that escalates, eventually, into war. With these wars, comes death and immense devastation; devastation that takes form in many ways. The worst of them are the human rights violations that occur, leaving behind a pain that is often rarely treated or addressed. Through the approach, transitional justice, victims of these horrible crimes against humanity have a system that allows them to seek some form of justice. Focus on the Bosnian genocide will allow for one to see how a specific case of transitional justice was played out and the cons, along with pros, of the actions every actor took that either prolonged or stiffened the progression of peace and justice in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina and

Throughout the course of human history, violence has been a reoccurring theme in the conquest for power in countries across the planet. Understanding the ideology behind some of this violence have puzzled historians and psychologists for centuries; furthermore, the presence of reconciliation between the victims and perpetrators after some of these horrific acts of terror is even more astonishing. This form of reconciliation was a significant factor during South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) formed in 1996. After close analysis, I have been able to identify the difference between the similar terms of reconciliation and forgiveness, understand the evaluation process of reconciliation between victims and perpetrators

To support my argument, I will first discuss the evolution of international criminal justice and the ICC. Then I will address my three subsidiary arguments. First, I will argue that the International Criminal Court is effective because it increases accountability of human rights violators. Secondly, I will argue that the existence and use of the court increases disapproval and deterrence which protects human rights making the ICC effective. Third, I will argue that the International Criminal Court is effective because it allows for a universal standard of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour as well as transcends and empowers national jurisdictions. Finally, I will address the counter argument and conclude.

Michael R. Marrus argues that there are four contexts that need to be addressed when trying to develop a strategy for reconciliation. These are political, legal, material, and cultural. These different areas of concern

From the point of view of a realist, states tend to pursue their own interests. Specifically, states that have not ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court can do what they deem necessary whether or not it is in accordance with international law. Therefore, states, such as South Africa, are driven by their own self-interest to leave the International Criminal Court. For South Africa, their self-interests may include protecting their citizens from what they believe is an unjust court system. African leaders, like the leaders in South Africa, believe that the International Court System is “biased” and is a “tool for Europe to beat up on Africa.” (NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE). In particular, realists believe that self-interest is driven by the state’s pursuit of power. In this case, the countries that are not under the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction do not have to follow the international laws that are defined in the Rome Statute. Therefore, in pursuit of power, the South African government may choose to follow the suit of other powerful countries and leave the International Criminal Court.

Many of the contemporary issues in South Africa can easily be associated with the apartheid laws which devastated the country. The people of South Africa struggle day by day to reverse “the most cruel, yet well-crafted,” horrific tactic “of social engineering.” The concept behind apartheid emerged in 1948 when the nationalist party took over government, and the all-white government enforced “racial segregation under a system of legislation” . The central issues stem from 50 years of apartheid include poverty, income inequality, land ownership rates and many other long term affects that still plague the brunt of the South African population while the small white minority still enjoy much of the wealth, most of the land and opportunities

In this thesis the writer “J.Matisonn” writes about how the TRC (Truth and Reconciliation Commission) not only addressed issues of crimes against humanity that also affected the Human rights of people but the other thing the TRC did well if anything according to this article it that it also addressed those people , organizations and even institutions who used media and propaganda in order to not only further the cause of the Apartheid government but to hurt so many families and relatives in the process.

South Africa’s past is one that is rooted in inequalities and injustices; racism and subjugation. Our Constitution was promulgated into law by South Africa’s first democratically elected President, Nelson Mandela, twenty years ago in 1996.

Before 1994 South Africa was a country based on Apartheid rules and regulations. The Parliament was the highest legislative body and it interpreted laws as it pleased, mostly in favour of ‘white Christians’. Any other race or religion was treated in an unfair and sometimes inhumane way. These laws were mainly based on Roman-Dutch law and influenced by English law.