There are many templates for achieving transitional justice, the broader purpose of which is to help a society reckon with a legacy of human rights abuses in the aftermath of dictatorship or conflict. These efforts might take the form of a criminal trial, a truth commission or a reparations program, in an effort to document horrific violations—and reckon with them.
The specific goals of transitional justice have evolved over time. Early initiatives emphasized criminal justice, with the most well-known example being the post-World War II trials of German and Japanese war criminals. More recently, however, the purpose of transitional justice began to expand to focus on reconciliation, healing and societal reformation. In the post-apartheid era, South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission prized information and resolution over justice, for instance.
The threat of a transitional justice mechanism can also present a stumbling block to peace negotiations, though, particularly when people who might be held accountable by such processes are asked to help establish them. In South Sudan’s civil war, all sides have shied away from the creation of a hybrid court that would potentially be tasked with delivering justice to the victims of abuses committed by the government and rebel militias. Their reluctance to participate may ultimately lead them to sink that country’s peace process, which has recently made halting but fragile progress.
There is also the broader problem of sustaining these efforts in the face of the temptation to leave painful experiences in the past, as well as opposition from participants in past human rights abuses and their sympathizers—something that is now happening in Brazil with regard to that country’s Cold War-era dictatorship. All of these challenges are compounded by the lingering question of who will pay for transitional justice mechanisms that may require years to complete their work.
No comments:
Post a Comment